Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Health Boards

Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what allowance was made for inflation and growth, respectively, in his provisional allocation of resources to Scottish health boards for 1988–89.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The provision for expenditure by health boards on hospital and community health services in 1988–89 is 5·8 per cent. over the corresponding provision for last year, which includes an allowance for inflation of 4·5 per cent. and for growth of 1·3 per cent.

Mr. Graham: Does the Minister sincerely believe that the figure for growth that we have—0·5 per cent.—is sufficient to meet the needs of the Scottish health boards, in whose areas thousands of people are waiting for treatment on the National Health Service?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman obviously prepared his supplementary question before listening to my answer. The figure for growth for health boards this year is 1·3 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that health boards have never been better funded in real terms than under this Government, having had an increase in funding of more than a quarter since 1979.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in cash terms, we are spending more than double what was spent in 1978–79, which followed a period when there had been cuts in building and resources for the Health Service under the Labour Government? Is it not a real demonstration of the Government's concern for the Health Service and for caring that we are spending so much more?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is right. The only cuts in the Health Service in the past 20 years were made under the Labour Government, who were forced to cut the capital building programme. My hon. Friend is right to point to our record. Not only are we spending more, but we are getting more value for the money spent in the Health Service.

Mr. Galbraith: The Minister must be aware that the actual figure for next year's increase as against the previous outcome is only 0·5 per cent. He will also know that that level is barely enough to cope with demographic

demand, let alone to improve the Health Service. Because of the chronic and continuing under-funding by the Government hospitals such as the Elsie Inglis in Edinburgh will have to close, and as a result patients' choice will be diminished.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is also a problem with the nurses' pay award? The Government have allocated £92 million, butt the health boards have told me that they think the figure will be more because of regrading. If it is, will he assure the House that the Government will provide the extra funds?

Mr. Forsyth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. When he has had the opportunity to do his homework he will realise that the cash uplift is about 4 per cent. for all boards in Scotards in Scotland. The overall cash uplift is 5·8 per cent. The 4 per cent. goes to all boards, plus an additional I per cent. which is being redistributed on the SHARE formula. In addition, there is a further £12 million that has not yet been distributed to health boards, so it is premature to pronounce on their allocations.
I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome an increase in nurses' pay that will result in their having a real increase of 44 per cent., as opposed to a reduction of 20 per cent. under the Labour Government. The Government have made it clear that we shall fully fund the pay awards over the 4·5 per cent. which has been allowed for inflation.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given the widespread interest in Scotland in the recommendations of the Griffiths report, is the Minister satisfied that within the small increase in the budget for health boards it will be possible for the boards to implement many of those recommendations?

Mr. Forsyth: We are giving careful consideration to the Griffiths report, which involves funding not just by health boards but by local authorities. We have made substantial increases in funding for health boards and social works depts of local authorities, and we shall certainly consider the recommendations carefully. Resources are not the problem. We must address ourselves to joint planning and organisation.

Scottish Development Agency

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairman of the Scottish Development Agency; and what matters were discussed.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): My right hon. and learned Friend and I met the chairman and board of the agency on 16 May to discuss strategic issues which might be reflected in the agency's planning and budgeting process, and other matters.

Mr. Oppenheim: Did my hon. Friend have a chance to discuss the increasing success of the Scottish electronics industry, which has increased its output threefold since 1979? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Scottish people can now deploy their well-known and traditional qualities of doughtiness, courage and entrepreneurial flair in pursuit of economic growth? Is it not a shame that those qualities are so little apparent: on the Opposition Benches?

Mr. Lang: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The growth of the electronics industry in Scotland has been a


major contribution to the development of a broader based and more secure economic environment in which prosperity can spread more widely.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: The Minister will be aware that Teachers whisky announced over 200 redundancies last week, in addition to the many other redundancies that have taken place in Springburn. Will he involve SDA officers in bringing work, rather than closures, to Springburn?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will know that the agency is engaged on a large number of initiatives in local areas in Scotland, and I am sure that it will note his remarks.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister consider providing extra funding to Locate in Scotland in order to boost Scottish preparation for the single European market in 1992? What is his Department doing to encourage seminars and projects throughout Scotland to maximise Scottish employment and success in that market?

Mr. Lang: We are already heavily involved in seeking to prepare companies in Scotland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, for the single European market. Part of the great success of Locate in Scotland in attracting inward investment to Scotland over the past few years is because it is perceived as being a good base for European manufacturing operations, particularly in electronics, but also in other industries.

Scottish Assembly

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding a Scottish Assembly since 5 May.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I have received two letters in favour of an Assembly and two against.

Mr. Wray: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware of the district election and the general election results, and that he did a somersault on devolution. He will also be aware that he bestowed on himself powers under the Local Government, Planning and Land (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1981 and thereby eroded democracy in Scotland. Is he aware that the only way getting rid of totalitarian demagoguery is by abolishing the poll tax and establishing a Scottish assembly?

Mr. Rifkind: I am aware that at the local elections the Conservative vote in my constituency increased from 39 to 46 per cent. and, indeed, that in Edinburgh the Conservative vote was greater than the Labour vote for the first time in five years. I doubt whether the Scottish public believe that a tax-raising Assembly would be in the interests of the Scottish economy or the other economic requirements of Scotland.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Scots have seen through the flawed proposals that have been put forward for any type of Scottish Assembly? Does he agree that the proposals, as they now stand, would have no chance of passing through

the House, whatever its political complexion, because eight out of every 10 people in English constituencies would not want their Members to vote in favour of it?

Mr. Rifkind: As almost every Labour Government since the war required Labour Members of Parliament from Scotland and Wales to provide them with their United Kingdom majority, it is increasingly puzzling why the Labour party should wish to adopt a constitutional solution that will result in a substantial reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster and the end of any effective voice for Scotland in the United Kingdom Cabinet.

Sir Russell Johnston: The Secretary of State knows full well that many people in Scotland have strong views on a Scottish Assembly. Does it not occur to him that it is a bad thing that only four bother to write to him—mainly because they know that he will not listen?

Mr. Rifkind: On the contrary, since the election the Labour party and, indeed, the Social and Liberal Democratic party have been unable to demonstrate any substantial demand in Scotland for constitutional change. I recollect that when the Labour party called for a great rally on Glasgow Green for Scottish democracy, fewer people turned out for that than the number who voted Conservative in the Glasgow, Garscadden constituency.

Mr. Irvine: Did any of the four letters received by my right hon. and learned Friend address itself to what has come to be known as the West Lothian question? Does he agree that if Scottish domestic issues are to be reserved to a specifically Scottish Assembly it will be difficult to justify Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster retaining their right to vote on and debate the full range of English domestic issues?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend has raised a genuine and serious problem that the Labour party must consider. The Labour party and, for that matter, the Social and Liberal Democratic party, are, by instinct, as Unionist as the Conservative party, yet they have failed to appreciate that the constant adapting of nationalist rhetoric is incompatible with the Unionist position that they have upheld since they were formed. They cannot at the same time argue for a Scottish Assembly unless they are prepared to provide an adequate and credible answer to the question that was so effectively raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who then represented West Lothian.

Mr. Dewar: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman not spent too much time recently in that painfully unrepresentative gathering, the Scottish Conservative party conference? Is there not a clear wish for some form of constitutional change in Scotland? Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not quite recently say that there was at least a preference for devolution in Scotland, although he still argued whether it was a priority? Is it not a dangerous exercise in obstinacy to try to go back on that, as he is now apparently doing? Has not the message about the Government's unacceptable social and constitutional policies been proclaimed loud and clear this morning in the unanimous decision of the Church of Scotland not to invite the Prime Minister to the General Assembly next year? [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman may laugh at the Church of Scotland, but that will not do him a great deal of good in Scotland. Clearly,


the right hon. Lady's sermon made few converts, and unacceptable policies remain unacceptable, however cleverly disguised. Is it not time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought again on devolution and an Assembly, as on many other policies?

Mr. Rifkind: I am amused, and it is significant, that, given the nature of the hon. Gentleman's questions, he clearly considers the General Assembly to be more important to Scotland than his proposals for a Scottish Assembly. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received an extremely warm and genuine welcome from the General Assembly, and the efforts of a tiny minority of the commissioners of the General Assembly, led by a commissioner who is also a Labour councillor on Glasgow district council, were seen to be totally unrepresentative of the views of the vast majority. Of the 1,200 present, only five, including that Labour councillor, showed the discourtesy that is so untypical of the Church of Scotland as a whole.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appreciate that we are about to debate the spring Adjournment motion, but I hope we can have less of a holiday atmosphere at Question Time.

Rating Reform

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of registration for the community charge.

Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to what proportion of registration forms for the community charge have been returned properly completed to the registration officer for each of the regional authorities in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: Detailed information on the progress of community charge registration is not available centrally, but it is clear that in many areas very high rates of return of forms have been achieved in the initial canvass. There is every reason to believe that the registration process is going smoothly.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister assure the House that he will seek a detailed statement of the progress of the registration from the poll tax registration officers, because there is evidence in some areas that the registration process is failing substantially? If some areas can achieve only 80 to 90 per cent. registration rates from direct returns from the public and therefore have to pad out the registrations with information from their own resources, will that not lead to registers being substantially appealed against after October, and will that not cause much delay and time-consuming and expensive administrative procedures?

Mr. Lang: I have every confidence that the registration officers will be able to fulfil their statutory duties without any interference from me. At the moment we are only a quarter of the way through the period for compiling the register, yet the signs from published figures are that the returns are in the region of 75 to 90 per cent. If anything is failing dismally, it is the Labour party's campaign to launch a "Return to Sender" campaign.

Mr. Doran: Is the Minister aware that in my post this morning I received an invitation from the Secretary of

State for Scotland to witness the retreat of the bands of the Royal Marines? We have already witnessed the retreat of the Tory party from Scotland, and the cries of anguish were painful indeed.
My information from the Grampian region is that '70 per cent. of registration forms have been returned, but only 40 per cent. have been completed. That means that 60 per cent. of people in the Grampian region have refused to return their forms or have returned them asking for more information. Will the Minister publish similar figures for the rest of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: Those figures are not returned to the Government. They are compiled by the registration officers, and they announce the figures if they so wish. I hope the hon. Gentleman shares my view that the most effective way to get the community charge system to fund local government successfully is to spread it as widely as possible across the adult population. If not, those who complete the form and end up on the register will pay a higher share than would otherwise be fair.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that registration for the community charge will take time, as we expected? Does he also agree that it is interesting that Angus district, which is run by the Scottish National party, and Perth and Kinross, where there is a Scottish National party provost, have clearly declared that people should register, comply with the law and pay the community charge? That is contrary to what Scottish National party members have been saying.

Mr. Lang: I commend the attitude of Angus district council and I hope that its views will percolate through to its parliamentary representatives.

Mr. Dewar: In his obviously carefully prepared initial answer the Minister referred to published figures. Where are they published, and what are they? As far as I am aware, there has been only some speculation in The Sunday Times, which is virtually a Conservative party house journal. Given the depressing spectacle in another place earlier this week of reactionary hereditary power being marshalled cynically to frustrate the views of public opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—what advice would the Minister give to Scots who recognise and oppose the unjust nature of the poll tax, but who are faced by a Government whose definition of democracy does not involve listening to the electorate?

Mr. Lang: That was obviously a very carefully prepared question. The published figures to which I referred were published in the press. The press will note with interest the disdain with which its published articles are treated by the Labour party. My advice to members of the public who are opposed to the legislation is to accept the rule of law. In that respect they will differ from the Labour party.

Electricity Industry

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed the proposals for privatisation of the electricity industry with the chairmen of the Scottish electricity boards.

Mr. Rifkind: I last met the chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board on 1 March and the chairman


of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board on 3 March to discuss privatisation of the electricity industry in Scotland.

Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State has often said that once privatisation has taken place he would wish a substantial number of shares to be retained within Scotland. Has he given any thought to proposals to ensure that that happens, given that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy, has said:
We shall be placing on the American market a proportion of the stock we shall be selling in the existing companies."?
Does that apply to the flotation of the Scottish companies as well as to those south of the border?

Mr. Rifkind: In previous privatisations those who are both employees and consumers of a nationalised industry have often been given preference in the acquisition of shares. In respect of the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, almost every consumer, with the sole exception of those living in Berwick-upon-Tweed, lives in Scotland. Therefore, if the Scottish public are interested in acquiring a substantial stake in the ownership of the two companies, they will have a preferential opportunity to do so.

Mr. Eadie: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman met the chairmen of the electricity boards in Scotland, was he able to assure them that a separate Scottish Bill would be published and that the proposed privatisation would not be hived off on to the Bill that is being submitted for the privatisation of electricity in England and Wales?

Mr. Rifkind: So far neither of the chairmen has expressed any preference for a particular form of legislation. Whether electricity privatisation should be part of a United Kingdom Bill or dealt with by separate English and Scottish Bills is a matter still to be resolved.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, apart from leading to wider share ownership, privatisation of the Scottish electricity industry will lead to lower prices to the consumer and greater job opportunities in manufacturing industry?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is correct. There is no reason why the privatisation of both companies should not have the same benefits for the public as all previous privatisations, despite predictions to the contrary by the Labour party.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Secretary of State now answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)? What guarantees will he put in the legislation to ensure that, in the months and years following the privatisation of the two electricity boards, control will remain in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: I cannot guarantee that the Scottish public will use the opportunities that the Government provide. The Scottish public will have a unique opportunity to acquire shares and therefore to acquire the ownership of the companies. Whether they wish to take advantage of those opportunities will be for them to decide. The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that that would be a responsible position to adopt.

Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State has said that he cannot guarantee continued Scottish ownership of the

Scottish electricity industry. Can he give the House any guarantee that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board will have a social clause that is meaningful to the north of Scotland with regard to reconnections, repairs of lines and other aspects of its activities?

Mr. Rifkind: The original reasons for the social clause were not those raised by the hon. Gentleman. Those reasons were to ensure that the remote rural areas and island communities had access to the benefits of the board's activities—that has already been achieved—and to achieve common tariffs throughout the area. In the White Paper we have already made it clear that we intend to ensure that there will be common tariffs throughout the board's area.

Earnings

Mr. Forth: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the most recent average weekly earnings figures for Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: The average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees on adult rates in Scotland in April 1987 are estimated to have been £214·6 for men and £139·9 for women. In both cases, only the south-east of England had higher earnings.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that that demonstrates the enormous success and well-being of Scottish people and economy? Therefore, does my hon. Friend accept that in future the Scottish people will look less towards the public sector and more towards their own great economic success? Will my hon. Friend confirm, however, that earnings from self-employment are still disappointingly low, and can he give us any goods news or optimism for the future?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, in that the Scottish economy is responding well to the encouragement of enterprise and the stable economic base generated by the Government's policies. He is quite right also to identify self-employment as an important sector in the Scottish economy. We wish to encourage its growth. I am glad to say that since 1981 the numbers of self-employed have risen by 45,000, whereas in the previous three decades there had been no increase at all.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister not astonished that a leading free market entrepreneur such as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) does not seem to be aware that the private sector Reward Group in its recent study discovered that the cost of food, transport, household goods and even drink in Scotland are considerably higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom? Does that not explain why the hon. Gentleman represents Mid-Worcestershire instead of Mid-Strathclyde?

Mr. Lang: I do not think that we need lessons on inflation from the Opposition, given the record of the last Labour Government between 1974 and 1979, when the cost of living more than doubled. It is precisely our great success in bringing down the rate of inflation in Scotland as elsewhere that has helped us establish the strong economic base that is leading to the growth of prosperity in Scotland.

Hospital Building

Sir Hector Monro: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many major hospital building projects are under construction and at what cost; and what were the comparable figures for 1978–79.

Mr. Rifkind: Ten major hospital building projects are currently under construction, estimated to cost some £97 million. Comparable figures for 1978–79 are not available, but provision for the health capital programme increased by 23 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1987–88.

Sir Hector Monro: Bearing in mind the complete failure of the Labour Government in the 1970s, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the capital programme is the biggest ever in real terms? Does he also agree that the increase in nurses' salaries and the very substantial future changes in the structure of the nursing profession must hold tremendous prospects for the National Health Service in Scotland?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is quite correct. The hospital building programme in Scotland is the largest in the history of the National Health Service in Scotland. Since 1979, 53 major new hospital developments have been completed and there are 33 major developments currently in the programme, of which three are being commissioned, 10 are under construction and 20 are at the planning stage. That shows the commitment of the Government to ensure that Scotland has hospital facilities that we can be proud of and that will last into the next century.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Is it not the case that the hospitals that the Secretary of State was talking about were approved by the last Labour Government? Will he say how many approvals for new hospitals have been given since 1979?

Mr. Rifkind: I know that the hon. Gentleman is desperately trying to retrieve the situation, but he knows perfectly well that the hospital building programme was cut under the last Labour Government——

Mr. Ross: How many?

Mr. Rifkind: We measure Governments not by their claims but by their deeds. The hon. Gentleman has to live with the fact that the Government whom he supported cut the hospital building programme, while under this Government we have the biggest ever hospital building programme.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: While welcoming the real and demonstrable commitment of the Government to new hospital building in Scotland, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that health boards use properly those facilities that they have available? Will he bear that particularly in mind in the consideration that he will shortly be giving to the proper provision of maternity services in rural areas in Grampian, where there are good facilities which are wanted by the local community and which the health board is trying to close?

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend is correct. Given the vast resources that health boards have at their disposal, it is particularly important that they ensure that they get the best value for those resources in the interests of patients.

District General Hospital (Motherwell)

Dr. Bray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to proposals for the building of a district general hospital on the site of Strathclyde hospital in Motherwell.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: My right hon. and learned Friend has not received any proposals from the Lanarkshire health board for a new district general hospital.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that the Lanarkshire health board has recently discovered mining subsidence on the site of the Law hospital, which makes it quite unsuitable for modernisation and development of that wartime emergency hospital on which Motherwell and Wishaw have depended for the past 40 years? Is he also aware that the Strathclyde hospital site has long been designated as a site for a new district general hospital? Will he tell the Lanarkshire health board to get on with it?

Mr. Forsyth: I thought that it was the position of Opposition Members that I should not tell the health boards to get on with anything. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Lanarkshire health board, as part of its general review of its long-term acute services strategy, is examining the case for a new district general hospital for the Hamilton-East Kilbride area. If it were to submit a proposal for a new hospital it would need to be backed by a full and detailed option appraisal. I await the board's proposals with interest.

Mr. Robertson: Is the Minister aware that the saga of the Motherwell district general hospital has been drifting on for about 25 years? Is he also aware that the huge Motherwell-Hamilton conurbation is seriously ill served in acute hospital services? When he considers the allocation of capital for hospital building, will he consider the desirability of building a new district general hospital for the Hamilton-East Kilbride area?

Mr. Forsyth: It is true that, this matter has been under consideration for some time, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the board decided to give priority to new schemes at Kirklands hospital, Udston hospital and Hairmyres hospital shortly after 1978. Those schemes are now coming to fruition and they reflect the SHAPE priorities and the priority that has been given to services for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped.

Single European Market (Cecchini Report)

Mr. McLeish: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has assessed the likely impact on Scotland of the Cecchini report on the single European market; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rifkind: The Cecchini report supports the view that the internal market will create major opportunities. I have no doubt that the Scottish business community will rise to the challenge of 1992.

Mr. McLeish: Is the Secretary of State aware of the recent speech by Mr. Hamish Morrison, chief executive of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), in which he said that he resented the fact that Government advertising on this issue represented Scottish business men as introspective bumpkins? He went on to say that British industrial policy did not match the realities of 1992 More


important, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the implications of the Channel tunnel and the need for infrastructural development? Is he also aware of the lack of regional policy and of the tremendous contribution made to Scotland by the financial services sector in Edinburgh? If he is aware of all those aspects, will he prepare a report on 1992 so that the Labour party can take advantage of the opportunities, as the Labour party wants to do, unlike the Conservative party, which is complacent and seems to be uninterested in Scotland benefiting from the single European market?

Mr. Rifkind: I welcome the Labour party's latter-day conversion to the EEC because, with almost the sole exception of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), the Labour party campaigned against Scotland's membership of the EC and was thoroughly repudiated by the Scottish electorate when the referendum on the Community took place. I also welcome the hon. Gentleman's passionate support for the Scottish financial sector. It would be nice if his Labour colleagues could show the same spontaneous enthusiasm for the development of financial institutions in Scotland as a means of creating employment and boosting our Scottish economy. I agree that the internal market will be in Scotland's interests if we can prepare ourselves in a suitably professional way. For example, it is encouraging that it was a Scottish company that acquired the contract for the initial work on the Channel tunnel. Anything that enables our exports to reach continental markets more quickly and effectively can only be in the interests of the Scottish economy.

Mr. Douglas: As one of the Labour Members of Parliament, numbering 69, who voted for the Heath Government's White Paper, I have reasonable credentials to enable me to speak on Britain's membership of the EC, and I have the scars to prove it. However, this is a serious matter. The Secretary of State surely has an obligation to report particularly on the economic implications for Scotland of the 1992 proposal. Will he also take into consideration the fact that the economic effects of 1992 are likely to strengthen the case for a Scottish Assembly as a counterpoise, in terms of political decision-making, to the over-centralisation of the United Kingdom decision-making process in London?

Mr. Rifkind: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's European credentials and his entitlement to speak with some authority on matters involving the EC. However, I must disagree with his latter observation, because I cannot see, in the context of a European internal market, why a Scottish Assembly, with the power to impose additional taxes on Scottish industry, could do anything other than weaken Scotland's ability to compete effectively within that European market.

Mr. Fallon: Will my right hon. and learned Friend also welcome the Labour party's conversion, not just to the idea of Europe, but to the idea of a market? How does he square the Labour party's new-found enthusiasm for the single European market with its constant wittering about the need for a closed Scottish economy?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the fundamental inconsistencies of those who argue on the one hand that Scotland must be protected by law and by Government from any action of the market, while on the

other they expect Scotland fully to benefit from that same market. The Labour party must identify where Scotland's interests truly lie. Few people in the modern world would argue that some form of siege economy could be anything other than intensely damaging to Scotland's economic future.

Housing Statistics

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the latest estimates of the number of Scottish houses which are (a) damp and (b) below tolerable standard.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Returns submitted by local authorities indicate that at 31 March 1987, 38,100 local authority dwellings required treatment for dampness alone, 78,400 required treatment for both dampness and condensation, and a total of 53,000 dwellings were below the tolerable standard in Scotland.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it not disgraceful that more than 100,000 Scottish homes suffer from dampness and that more than 50,000 dwellings, most of them in the private sector, are below a tolerable standard? Why is it that the Secretary of State for Scotland rejects a house condition survey when the Secretary of State for Wales has just spent £1·6 million on such a survey so that he may be better acquainted with the housing problems of Wales and produce a programme for the future? Does not the ignorance of the Secretary of State for Scotland about the problems of Scottish housing and his failure to plan for the future ill fit him for his office?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. We are not convinced of the case for a national house condition survey as opposed to the requirement for local authorities to fulfil their statutory responsibility to assess the needs in their own areas. We support local authorities undertaking their own house condition surveys, as Glasgow has done.
The number of houses falling below a tolerable standard has been reduced from 121,000 in 1979 to 53,000. We hope that substantial progress will continue to be made. I stress that more is being spent on public housing in Scotland this year than last.

Mr. Lambie: Is it correct to say that when the Minister was a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs investigating housing conditions he not only supported its call to the Government for a housing condition survey but voted for one?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member has a very good memory. We do not rule out a national house condition survey on principle. [Interruption.] The matter is under consideration. We strongly support the principle of local authorities undertaking their own surveys, as Glasgow has done, which will assist both the authorities and their communities.

Mr. Favell: How many of the councils responsible for housing that is below a tolerable standard are controlled by the Labour party?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I would think a considerable number. However, we expect substantial


progress to be made. In the early days there was a great deal of demolition, but now houses will be renewed and rehabilitated, so that families may continue to live in them.

Mr. Ron Brown: Does the Minister agree that if the Government are not to be accused of double standards public housing in Scotland should be brought up to at least the standards enjoyed by the governor general seated next to the Minister, who has an official residence in Edinburgh named Bute House? Is it true that £100,000 was spent on Bute House last year? If so, how can the Minister justify that expenditure?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is important that more should be spent on public sector housing in Scotland this year. The final housing revenue account capital allocations for this year total £58 million more than the provisional allocations and are more than £34 million up on last year.
As to Bute House, obviously it is necessary that it should be kept in a proper condition.

Mr. Home Robertson: In this week of scriptural references, is the Minister aware of the words of Matthew 15:
if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch?
Has he yet taken an opportunity to look at the Prime Minister's complimentary copy of the Church of Scotland's report on housing in Scotland, which refers, among other things, to the lack of any reliable official survey of housing conditions in Scotland? As Scotland is now the only part of the United Kingdom without a house condition survey, may we take it that the Minister is deliberately remaining blind, ignorant and indifferent to the plight of hundreds of thousands of Scots who are living in overcrowded and sub-standard accommodation?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It certainly will not be a question of the blind leading the blind, because we are issuing to authorities a handbook of guidance on the conduct of local house condition surveys. One of the difficulties about a national house condition survey is that the sample might be relatively small. In our view, it is more effective at this stage for local authorities to carry out their statutory responsibilities by making certain that they know the precise details of their own housing stock.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were unemployed in Scotland in June 1983 and March 1988; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: Seasonally adjusted, the number of unemployed claimants was 308,000 in June 1983 and 300,000 in March 1988. Latest figures show a further drop to 295,000 in April, continuing the firm downward trend.

Mr. Hind: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his reply. Has he noted the figures for unemployment in the long term, which were published yesterday, showing that in Scotland over the past 12 months there has been a reduction of 36,600–16·5 per cent.—in the number unemployed for six months, and a further 28,800–15·6 per cent.—reduction in the number unemployed for 12 months? Does that not vindicate the Government's economic policy and show that it is working in Scotland as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the good news that long-term unemployment is falling in Scotland as well as elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I agree with him that that is a result of sustained commitment over a period of years to our economic policies, which are now delivering more increased prosperity.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister now tell us the whole truth about the Government's track record on Scottish unemployment, which is that there has been an increase of 97 per cent. since that woman got the keys to No. 10 in May 1979?

Mr. Lang: I understand the hon. Gentleman's confusion over the matter, because no Labour Government have ever experienced the phenomenon of sustained falls in unemployment. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that in his constituency unemployment has fallen in the past year by 1,022.

Mr. Speaker: Order. My attention was distracted, but I remind the House that we should refer to each other by our constituencies or offices in this place.

Mr. Wallace: Does the Minister accept that in "Just Sharing", the book published by the Church of Scotland, unemployment is given as one of the main reasons why poverty in Scotland has nearly doubled during the years of this Conservative Administration? What steps do the Government intend to take to address themselves to that fundamental question of poverty in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: The best way of countering poverty is by increasing prosperity, and that is what we have been doing in the past few years. We now have falling inflation, falling unemployment, increasing prosperity, increased investment and a rising standard of living for the vast majority of Scots.

Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that last year's record level of business registrations in Scotland, and the considerable growth in self-employment, not only pay tribute to the growth of the enterprise economy in Scotland but will contribute greatly to further reductions in unemployment?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures for self-employment that I gave earlier this afternoon show the growth of enterprise in Scotland. It is also encouraging that employment during the last quarter of 1987 rose by around 7,000, and that business surveys from such bodies as the CBI and the Fraser of Allander Institute demonstrate that that growth is continuing.

Scottish and Newcastle Breweries

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what categories of assistance or grant his Department has paid to Scottish and Newcastle Breweries in respect of its Scottish operations since 1979.

Mr. Lang: The company received assistance from my Department under the old regional development grant scheme, which ended in 1984. It has received no assistance under regional selective assistance since 1979 or under the revised regional development grant scheme.

Mr. Allen: Was the Scottish Office consulted about the takeover of Charles Mackinlay by Invergordon Distilleries? If the Minister cannot answer now, will he undertake to write to me? Is he aware that hundreds of tenant-publicans in my constituency have been given notice to quit by Scottish and Newcastle Breweries? When Scottish and Newcastle next brings the begging bowl to the Scottish Office, will he tell it that, while the importation of Scottish and Newcastle best bitter is a bad enough imposition on my constituency, the imposition of Scottish and Newcastle's industrial relations practices is not acceptable?

Mr. Lang: I would not expect my Department to have been consulted on the takeover, but if I find that we were consulted I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman. The details of the relationship between Scottish and Newcastle Breweries and the company that it has taken over are a matter for the company and not for the Scottish Office.

Mr. Steel: Does the Minister accept that the consumption of the products of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries appears to have played some part in the ugly scenes at Wembley last weekend? Will he take this opportunity to repudiate the offensive suggestion by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) that the effects were visible on one side only, or the idea that they have anything to do with the Government's support of the company?

Mr. Speaker: That is very wide of the question.

Mr. Lang: I think it unwise for anybody to comment on such incidents without having access to all the facts.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is spreading despondency among the Home brewery tenants and the company although he knows full well that the National Licensed Victuallers Association has accepted the proposals put forward by the company and is putting the proposals to its tenants tomorrow?

Mr. Lang: Yes, indeed. I understand that 90 per cent. of the tenants have accepted the new rent levels from Scottish and Newcastle Breweries and that production and employment at the Home brewery has increased.

Coal Imports

Mr. O'Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has as to how many tons of coal have been imported by the South of Scotland Electricity Board since 1 April.

Mr. Lang: The level of coal deliveries to the South of Scotland Electricity Board is a matter for the board and its suppliers. I understand from the SSEB that around 20,000 tonnes have been delivered to date.

Mr. O'Neill: Will the Minister join me in hoping that those figures will not in any way impede the negotiations between the SSEB and British Coal, as I understand that progress has been made on price and tonnage? Will the Minister assure us that he will give his backing to a deal that will secure jobs in the Scottish coal industry for as long as possible into the mid-1990s?

Mr. Lang: I would certainly welcome a successful outcome to those negotiations, but that outcome must be based on a realistic perception of the competitiveness of British Coal and its ability to enable the electricity board to generate electricity competitively.

Mr. Darling: Is the Minister not taking the role of a disinterested spectator in the negotiations? Is he not aware that unless the coal side of electricity in Scotland is kept up we shall have to depend more and more on nuclear energy, with all the implications that that has for price and safety?

Mr. Lang: I am not uninterested in the negotiations but I do not believe that it is right and proper that we should interfere in them. There is every opportunity for Scottish coal to contribute to the generation of electricity, provided that it is available competitively.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that Scotland is fortunate to have a wide variety of fuel resources? Will he also acknowledge that if the coal industry is to invest in deep mining it requires contracts for a reasonable period or years? Therefore, will he use what opportunity may be available to him to ensure that the SSEB takes a realistic view, as the CEGB has done in the south?

Mr. Lang: I certainly hope that realism will colour the negotiations on both sides. I welcome the signs of increased flexibility over working hours on the part of miners.

Dr. Moonie: It is just not good enough for the Minister to shrug off the negotiations between British Coal and the SSEB as though they were none of his business. He must be well aware of the problems and delays facing the implementation of the plans for the Torness power station. He must be well aware also of the problems at the Hunterston B power station, which is now 50 per cent. closed and must have a large question mark over its future. Surely he sees a role for the Government in promoting a strategic policy for energy production in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: I believe that Scotland is fortunate to have such varied sources of fuel for electricity generation. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government ought to indulge in the beer and sandwiches approach to the negotiations that got the country into so much difficulty in the late 1970s, I assure him that he is mistaken.

Secondary School Pupils

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent per pupil in secondary schools in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79, at constant prices.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: In 1986–87, net current expenditure per pupil in secondary schools in Scotland at outturn prices was £1,764. This is 26 per cent. more in real terms than the comparable figure in 1978–79, which at 1986–87 prices was £1,403.

Mr. Knox: How do those figures square with claims that there have been cuts in secondary education expenditure under this Government?

Mr. Forsyth: Such claims, which have been made by Opposition Members, are untrue. Expenditure has


increased substantially in real terms. In the current year expenditure provision for education will increase by some 9 per cent., which is a real increase well above the rate of inflation.

Mr. McAllion: Does the Minister agree that his figure for expenditure per pupil reflects declining school rolls rather than increased Government expenditure? The reality in Scottish schools continues to be chronic under-funding. If there has been the British economic miracle about which Conservative Members keep talking why is it not reflected in expenditure on Scottish schools?

Mr. Forsyth: Expenditure in Scottish schools is considerably higher than in England. One of the reasons for that is that a substantial part of the resources is spent on property costs, including the additional burden of rates, and on the lower pupil-teacher ratio because there are proportionately more staff. Labour-controlled local authorities in Scotland have made little progress in rationalising school places. In England, since 1979, the number of secondary schools has been reduced by 10 per cent. The comparable figure for Scotland is only 1 per cent.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend give the latest pupil-teacher ratio in Scottish schools and compare it with the figure for 1978–79, when we had a Labour Government? Will he then draw the attention of the House, and that of Scotland and the rest of the nation, to the substantial improvement that has been made since then?

Mr. Forsyth: I shall he happy to provide that information in the Official Report. The pupil-teacher ratio in secondary schools in Scotland is 13·2:1 as against 15·6:1 in England.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Why is the Minister so reluctant to address himself to the problem of falling school rolls in Scotland, particularly the fall in secondary education? Why does he not accept that such improvement as has been achieved in funding has been achieved by Labour-controlled authorities despite cuts in rate support grant made by the Government? Why does the Minister not admit to these things? Why does he not improve education at the point of use, rather than engage in this useless debate about figures that are utterly meaningless in real terms?

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman is asking me to endorse local authorities' action in rationalising school places, I should be happy to do so. It is a pity, however, that education authorities such as Strathclyde perceive rationalisation as closing full schools rather than empty ones. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about resources, he should ask Strathclyde why it cannot guarantee that any savings that it makes from rationalisation will be used to add to education provision.

Housing Stock

Mr. McTaggart: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department has prepared an analysis of the likely effects on the administration of the Scottish public

sector housing stock of the number of people in Scotland who will face reductions in income as a result of the recent housing benefit changes.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, Sir, but there is no reason to suppose that the housing benefit changes will have any significant effect at all on the administration of public sector housing.

Mr. McTaggart: Is the Minister aware that many constituents have written to me and, I am sure, to many other right hon. and hon. Members, expressing their genuine fear about the housing benefit changes? Has the Minister produced any figures that show how many people are worse off as a result of the changes, and what the average loss is? Instead of preaching to these people, many of whom are pensioners, why do the Government not do something to deal with their plight?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am responsible for the structure of local government. We believe that housing agencies will be very well able to cope. The new system will be simpler and easier to administer. The administration of public sector housing, involving such matters as management, maintenance arid allocation policy, should not be affected by the payment of housing benefit. On the same night as the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) had an Adjournment debate, a letter explaining the situation fully was sent out to every right hon. and hon. Member by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled.

Mr. Dewar: The Minister says that the changes will have little effect on the administration of housing departments. Does he accept that the changes will have an appalling impact on ordinary people in Scotland'' How does he reconcile the fashionable preaching about morality with the cruel and inhuman changes in housing benefit, which are causing so much dismay and distress in every part of the land?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: As the hon. Member knows, housing benefit is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Social Services. However, I can tell him that nearly 90 per cent. will gain, or will get the same amount of cash as before, when the reforms overall—involving family credit and Income support—are taken into account. It is estimated that £613 million will be spent on housing benefit in Scotland this year.

Scottish Bus Group

Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representatives he has received on the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend has received 47 representations, mainly about the form that privatisation might take, and its practical effects.

Mrs. Michie: Does the Minister recall that when the Secretary of State made a statement yesterday on the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group he said that he was not yet in a position to say what the future will hold for Caledonian MacBrayne? In view of the anxiety in the Highlands and Islands about the future of Cal


Mac, will he at least give us some idea of when he can make a statement? Is it to be this year, next year, or when?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It remains under consideration. However, I am glad to confirm to the hon.

Lady that we regard the services to the islands—of which she is a representative—as a lifeline. It will also continue to be our policy to keep down travel costs to the islands. I appreciate that her constituents will want to know as soon as practicable.

Rowntree plc

Mr. Bryan Gould: (by private notice): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the decision not to refer the Nestlé bid for Rowntree to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): This morning my right hon. and noble Friend announced his decision not to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission Nestlé's bid for Rowntree, or Suchard's 29·9 per cent. holding. This decision was in accordance with the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading. It is now for Rowntree's shareholders to decide whether to accept Nestlé's bid.
Our policy is that, in deciding whether to refer a merger to the MMC, the main consideration is the effect of the merger on competition. Neither of these proposals raise competition issues which justify a referencé. Nestlé and Suchard have only 3 per cent. and 2 per cent. respectively of the United Kingdom chocolate market.
My right hon. and noble Friend also concluded, after considering the Director General's advice, that there were no employment, reciprocity or other public interest issues which justified a reference.
The United Kingdom has benefited greatly from both inward and outward investment. We believe that open markets are the best means of encouraging efficiency and generating wealth and jobs. This applies to capital markets as well as to markets for goods and services.
The success of the United Kingdom economy is the best evidence of the effectiveness of our policies on competition and investment. My right hon. and noble Friend's decision is consistent with those policies, and is in the best interests of our continued economic prosperity.

Mr. Gould: Is not this decision a betrayal of British industry? Is it not a grave blow to the work force at Rowntree, to the local communities affected and to all those hon. Members, on both sides of the House, who understand the importance of Rowntree to their local economies? Is it not unfortunate that by this decision the opportunity has been missed to take those views and also the national interest properly into account? Is it not unfortunate that the decision will, instead, be taken exclusively by institutional shareholders according to their own narrow interests?
Why was the regional dimension not fully taken into account? Is it not clear that Rowntree, as one of the few major British companies with a headquarters outside the south-east, will lose that regional character if it is absorbed into a Swiss multinational? Should not the lack of reciprocity, in practical terms at least, between ourselves and the Swiss have been taken fully into account? What consideration was given to making a prohibition order under section 13 of the Industry (Amendment) Act 1975?
Given the similar threats that now emerge to similar British companies, the confused state of the Government's competition policy, and the added complications of 1992 and the internal market, may we have a debate on these important issues as soon as possible?

Mr. Clarke: I do not believe that there is any uncertainty about our policy. We have clear competition laws that govern such matters. We recently issued a Blue Paper which clearly set out our policy on monopolies arid mergers. At the time it was not seriously challenged by anybody. We have a clear view of what is required to prepare this country for 1992 and to continue to keep it competitive in markets that are becoming ever more global for large numbers of products. In response, we are faced with extremely uncertain populism, which is not properly thought out and is based largely on short-term lobbies and fear of foreigners coming in.
We realise the importance of Rowntree to all those towns in which it has a manufacturing base. It is not for me to anticipate what the rival management will say about their intentions. However, I do not believe that anybody is seeking to acquire that company with a view to running down or abandoning its manufacturing capacity in this country. It is essentially up to the management—whoever owns it—to ensure that the company is kept cost-competitive and to decide how it manufactures and where it employs in future.
Nestlé has been well-established in this country for over 100 years. The bulk of its work forceé10,000 people, which is more than the company employs in Switzerland—is based in the regions of this country.
We considered the question of reciprocity, because it can be an element in such cases. However, the fact is that a Swiss Minister would not have the legal powers that my right hon. and noble Friend has to intervene to refer or block a merger, using the powers to which the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) referred. Many Swiss companies have a share structure which makes it difficult for them to be taken over, as have many well-known British companies, such as Trusthouse Forte plc and Great Universal Stores plc. In the opinion of the Director General of Fair Trading, with which I wholly agree, reciprocity was not an adequate issue in this case.
It is right that the matter should now be decided by the shareholders. Our approach to inward and outward investment is in the best interests of the continued growth of the British economy.

Mr. Conal Gregory: Is my right hon. and learned Friend not opening a Pandora's box by his statement today? Having heard his statement, I feel that he is bringing about a regional assassination of a major manufacturing base in the north of England.
After today's decision, what protection does any United Kingdom company have against cash-rich Swiss companies which have protection against rival takeovers in Switzerland? Can my right hon. and learned Friend name one United Kingdom company that has succeeded in a hostile bid in Switzerland; nay, can he name any EEC company that has succeeded in a hostile bid in Switzerland?
Finally, did he take into account the employment aspects of this matter as Rowntree plc is one of only six remaining companies that have their international headquarters in the north of England? The House demands answers.

Mr. Clarke: I understand the concern in my hon. Friend's constituency. However, he is wrong to look upon this, as he puts it, as a threat to the manufacturing base. We are talking about the ownership of a major


manufacturer of chocolates, especially for the British market. I cannot understand how anybody would make a bid for that company and then propose to close it down as a manufacturer of chocolates in this country. That would be a pointless acquisition.
Investment goes two ways. I take a great interest in the northern economy. I do not think that the northern economy would benefit any more than the midlands or the southern economies would if we suddenly tried to close off our companies from overseas capital investment, or if we tried to inhibit the ability of British companies to buy overseas. The proportion of our manufacturing base owned by foreign enterprises has been falling during the Government's period of office. In 1985, 14 per cent. of manufacturing employment was accounted for by foreign enterprises compared with 15 per cent. in 1979.
There have been takeovers in Switzerland. Piaget, the famous maker of Swiss watches, was recently acquired by Cartier. Opposition Members will say "Oh, Cartier is a foreign name—the company must be foreign," but it is a British-owned company. United Kingdom investors are the main overseas predators and make bids for overseas companies which far exceed the bids made by the Germans, the French or others. That is a good thing. That practice will increase as we run up to 1992. I welcome the fact that United Kingdom companies make bids in western Europe, such as Rowntree when it acquired Candice Martial last year, and Cadbury Schweppes when it acquired Chocolat Poulain in France. These companies have been overseas investors and they benefit from the free market system.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that the Swiss should be able to sit behind the barricade of the Alps and pick off our ripe cherries? Does he accept that his statement means that the Government have no credible competition policy, no credible anti-monopoly policy and no effective or robust regional policy? Is it reasonable that the shareholders of the company should be expected to protect the interests of jobs and a corporate headquarters in the north? Is it not likely that the shareholders, as shareholders generally always do, will take the money and run? How will the Government respond if Rowntree goes for a merger with Cadbury as a logical defence of the company?

Mr. Clarke: I express amazement that someone who represents the Liberal party in this place, or what was the Liberal party, which always claimed to be the great European party, should retreat into arguments about the Swiss sitting behind the Alps. That is rather reminiscent of the talk in the past about Swiss gnomes. I am astonished also that someone representing what was the Liberal party should attack the idea of shareholders exercising any judgment on the best use of capital and the ownership of companies. If the newly emerged party, whose initials I can still never remember, is to try to reach agreements on policy, it will have to reconsider its approach to international market economies, competition-merger policy and the private sector economy.
If any other company starts bidding for another chocolate company, whether the bids come from home or abroad, we shall take the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, who will apply the sensible legal rules that

the House has laid down, along with the sensible monopolies and mergers policy that we set up recently in our Blue Paper.

Sir Giles Shaw: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that I deplore the decision that has been made today? Will he accept also that I am astounded that it is not considered by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that there are any public issues involved in it that require examination? Will he confirm, for example, that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is concerned about how much of the confectionery industry is taken into foreign ownership? What percentage would cause a national issue to arise? What do my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Education and Science have to say about the commitment to the Community in the light of an operation of the Rowntree type? What does the Department of Industry have to say about the further reduction in the six corporate headquarters that exist in the north of England? What does the Department of Trade have to say when about the only gain that the Government have achieved is a reputation for offering the maximum amount of encouragement to foreign capital to come here unfettered so that it is a matter of all manufacturing assets to be sold and gazumpers welcomed by 1992?

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State had many serious issues to consider, including, overridingly, the national interest. That is one of the issues that we are rightly covering in these exchanges—whether it is in the national interest to have a reasonably free exchange of investment and capital movement across the world, given that the British are now the major overseas investors. We considered the reciprocity arguments and found, both in Britain and Switzerland, that some companies are so structured that it is difficult to make a reverse takeover bid. There are many who argue that it would not be to the advantage of an economy to have too many companies that are protected in that way. We considered the effects on market share, competition and the consumer, for example. All these issues have been considered in a reasoned way. There is no public interest and no established policy reason for the Government to intervene and say that the issue should not be decided by the shareholders.
I appreciate the experience and the close local concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) in these matters, but we should not abandon the Government's legal, policy, economic and industrial bases and start acting in a short-term populist way in response to lobbies, managements which fear takeovers, or probably unfounded fears about the impact on particular firms.

Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Minister realise that those of my constituents who are employed at the Girvan factory of Rowntree will be deeply disappointed that he is adopting a Pontius Pilate role, which suggests that he is acting under the influence of his unelected boss?
Is he aware that the Girvan travel-to-work area has the third highest level of unemployment in the country? What guarantee can he offer the people in the Rowntree factory in Girvan that their jobs will be protected?

Mr. Clarke: If anyone is taking any Roman attitudes in all this it is the British investor who, with the encouragement of the British Government, is building up an empire of overseas holdings throughout the world, as British investors move into America and Europe. The average American business man wears a Brooke's Brothers suit, but is not usually worried that that company is British-owned. If one wishes to stay in a Hilton hotel outside America, one finds that one is staying in a British-owned hotel. If, on the other hand, one buys a bottle of good British Ashbourne mineral water, one finds that it is produced by Nestlé in its factory in Derbyshire.
It is absurd to adopt this nationalist approach to policy, and it will become ever more so by 1992. Even the nationality of companies is a matter of argument. We talk about these companies being national companies because their headquarters are in a given place, but the nationality of the shareholders is becoming more international all the time. In our competition policy we have to consider consumers' interests and the impact on the economy as a whole, and that is what we shall do.
I am sure that both competing bidders will make their statements about what the future holds for jobs, manufacturing, cost-effectiveness and any rationalisations that they may undertake. Those are matters for management. They never would be matters for the Government, whether the company remains wholly Rowntree-owned or whether it is taken over by Nestlé, Suchard or anyone else.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that as there are only six firms in the EEC controlling 70 per cent. of the EEC confectionery market there is a prima facie case, on European competition grounds, for blocking this bid, which would reduce their numbers from six to five? Does that not show that there is an urgent need to accept and adopt the EEC merger directive?
Are we not sending a dangerous signal to British industry? If, in preparation for 1992, British firms invest in improving their R and D, their marketing and their general organisation, and their profits drop in the short-term, and if the British Government will not stand by them if they are attacked by predatory bids just at that moment, is that not dangerous?

Mr. Clarke: We do not know whether the bid will be successful. That is not a matter for me or my right hon. and noble Friend. It depends on what happens and on the decision of the shareholders. If it is right that the emergence of 1992 will lead to a concentration of ownership, we have to make sure that the European consumer and the European economy are protected against the problems of monopoly and merger. We are in discussion with the Commission about the future role of European competition policy, on which we have an open mind. We are, however, anxious to ensure that any European-wide agreement should be based broadly on our principles of free investment, not taking nationalist decisions, and acting in the best economic interests of the economy and consumers. We would not want Europe to adopt anything that stopped British investors maintaining the substantial level of acquisitions in western Europe upon which they are now embarked.

Mr. John Garrett: Is the Minister aware that his answer will cause some concern among the

thousand Rowntree workers in my constituency, who happen to work on a prime city centre site? Would not a reference to the MMC be the only way of obtaining an objective study of the national interest in these matters? Has not the right hon. and learned Gentleman given the green light to protected European predators to take over any British company that they happen to fancy?

Mr. Clarke: Anyone who wants to acquire a company has to persuade the shareholders that he is making the right price offer for it or has the prospect of developing that company and improving its performance. We must judge bids, from wherever they come, thus: if the Government decide to intervene and stop the shareholders deciding, they must do that on the basis of the national interest, the consumers' interest and the various other things that we have been discussing. The Director General of Fair Trading and my right hon. and noble Friend have carefully considered those aspects and have decided that they are not affected in this case.
At the moment, British investors go overseas much more than others. It is to the advantage of other countries if they open up their markets o overseas investment—they get capital inflows as a result. British predators are more feared than any others across most of western Europe, and long may that remain so.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that all of us realise that British companies are taking over overseas companies, just as British companies are being taken over, and that that is a good thing? Is not the problem that the Government's monopolies and mergers policy has become a shambles and needs to be re-thought? Cadbury and Rowntree would fit ideally together, not just because of their enterprise, but because of their backgrounds, and make an excellent merger. However, because of the monopolies and mergers policy such a suggestion would be flung into the arms of the MMC, so they are hamstrung. If we are to have free competition, let us have free competition, and not stop British firms from doing what is good for Britain.

Mr. Clarke: Our monopolies and mergers policy is crystal clear and has been applied wholly logically in this case. I take my hat off to the management, which, faced with a bidder that happens to be an overseas company, has run an extremely good campaign, implying that this is some sort of overseas threat to British sovereignty, and has tried to get the Government to intervene to decide the matter in its favour.
I bear no to the Rowntree management or to anybody else. I am wholly neutral on the merits of the issue. It is up to Rowntree to persuade its shareholders that their best interests and those of the company lie with the present management. The overall effect of continuing to apply the rules that I have described to any major bid proposal will be that we look after the interests of the United Kingdom economy and the consumer. We shall continue to apply those rules consistently.
We shall cross the bridge of a merger between Cadbury and Rowntree when we reach it. We shall consider that on the basis of the likely effects on the market and the consumer. One must consider the market in these products and the effect of any merger by two manufacturers.

Mr. Doug Henderson: Will the Minister own up to the fact that in reality he is handing over the future of 13,000 jobs in the north-east of England to 30 banks and insurance companies in the City of London? Does that not demonstrate the need to change merger legislation and to give workers and managers, the people who make the companies succeed, a direct say?

Mr. Clarke: If I were being fair to the Opposition, I would at least credit them with consistency. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friends, the Opposition are more consistent in these matters. Most Labour Members dislike the idea of British capital being invested overseas and, like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), try to devise a complicated arrangement for most of the capital. Most Labour Members are against any merger, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would oppose any takeover, whether the bidder was British or foreign. This Fortress England mentality to the economy is an extremely unsuccessful approach to modern trading conditions. The success of the British economy in the past eight years shows that the Labour party's approach is fundamentally wrong and not even in the interests of those employed in our major companies.

Mr. Michael Alison: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that in his statement today the Secretary of State expressed doubts about whether the Swiss system of restrictive shareholding barriers suited their system well and said that they appear to be on the point of liberalising it? As that liberalisation would be very much in the interests of British firms seeking to invest in Switzerland, was it not an error of judgment not to penalise the Swiss in this instance and encourage liberalisation by imposing the necessary restrictions on reciprocal grounds on the investments which Nestlé is trying to make in Rowntree?

Mr. Clarke: When we last had an exchange on this subject I said that I was not a Swiss legislator, so I could not give views on Swiss law. So far as I can discover, the law does not arise, and no Minister in Switzerland is given the powers of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State to intervene. If I were a member of the Swiss stock exchange, it is likely that I would disapprove of the capital structure of many Swiss companies, but I am not. Moreover, I understand that there are pressures to change that.
I have already cited companies in the United Kingdom, one of which is the National Freight Corporation, in whose creation I was in a minor way involved, which have a structure which protects them from takeover bids. The British stock exchange does not approve of that so much, but no one has yet suggested that the Government should intervene to stop companies setting up that particular share structure, and I do not think that we can.
Given that background, I do not believe that any substantial issue arises in this case to suggest that we should suddenly impose a total ban on all Swiss bids for British companies until the Swiss change their corporate structure. We would be depriving ourselves of a valuable influx of overseas capital; as valuable as the influx of capital from the Americans, the Japanese and elsewhere.

Mr. Bruce Millan: The Minister keeps talking about shareholders, but is it not against all

experience to expect shareholders to protect the national interest, as against protecting their own interests? In this case the management and work force of Rowntree and the local communities are all utterly opposed to the takeover. Does that count for absolutely nothing with the Government?

Mr. Clarke: It is contrary to all experience to believe that an industrial strategy, as managed by Labour Ministers, is in the interests of employees, compared with the decisions of shareholders in the free market economy that we are now operating. The strong growth of the British economy over the past eight years is the best illustration of that. We are now the fastest expanding economy in Europe, which is why we are aggressive investors overseas and why we are attracting so much inward investment. Recent experience shows that that is in our economic interests.
The proportion of manufacturing in this country owned by foreign companies has been dropping, if considered in employment terms, in recent years because, although there has been a great deal of inward investment, the amount of domestic investment has also been rising very rapidly. There is therefore no risk of our losing our sovereignty and of all companies becoming foreign owned. As our recent economic experience proves, the climate is at present much more favourable to growth, enterprise, new employment and continued expansion of the British economy.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Notwithstanding my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks about the application of the principle of reciprocity to Nestlé, will he take time to consider the range of alternative shareholding structures in Europe and the different mechanisms for issuing non-voting shares and restricting voting rights on ordinary shares in particular circumstances, which exist to a certain extent here but are particularly prevalent in Holland and Germany? Will he consider carefully whether he believes that those systems are necessarily in the public interest or, indeed, in the European interest after 1992?

Mr. Clarke: I shall take the time to consider those points, and I shall probably take the time to consider my hon. Friend's advice as he has considerable expertise in these matters. There is a great variety of shareholding structures in western Europe, and it is more difficult to acquire companies in some countries than in others. I have already said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) that I am not sure whether it is in the interests of the countries that have restrictive shareholding structures to keep them as they are. When we consider these issues on a European-wide level, as no doubt we eventually will when we have a common statute for corporate organisation covering the European Community, I am not sure that we should imitate the more closed systems. The more open system in Britain is undoubtedly preferable.

Mr. Greville Janner: The Minister said that no employment issues were involved. Does he know that the workers at the Fox's Glacier Mints factory in my constitutency take a totally different view, that they get on extremely well with the management, and that they have confidence in the company and none whatever in the takeover mechanism, which brings them only anxiety?


What guarantee, if any, can the Government give to those employed by Fox's Glacier Mints that they will have any future if the company is taken over?

Mr. Clarke: I understand people's anxiety about employment whenever any major change affects the company for which they work. The only people who can make statements about the future pattern of employment are the management of a company. I do not know what statements Rowntree has been making to the employees of Fox's Glacier Mints in recent years, and I do not know what it will be proposing. However, I know that when Ministers regarded it as their obligation to make statements about employment issues the British economy was performing very badly. As we now acknowledge that management should be given the right to manage its own business, and that the market makes pretty good judgments about the best use of capital, we find that the economy is doing very much better. That means that jobs are being created in Britain at a much faster rate than in the rest of Europe put together.

Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the decision will be met with real regret in my constituency in east Yorkshire? Is he aware that we are worried, not just about the number of jobs in the north, but about the quality of jobs? When firms are taken over and the head office moves to London, or in this case perhaps Geneva, the international market in jobs is affected. Jobs in R and D and in top management will go. Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that one of the main culprits in this case is the Rowntree Trust, which was given 50 per cent. of the shares of the company by the Rowntree family, but has progressively sold its holding and now owns only 5 per cent.?

Mr. Clarke: I shall not comment on what the Rowntree Trust has been spending some of that money which has not always pleased Conservative Members. I shall leave that on one side.
I am pleased to say that the Yorkshire and Humberside economy is doing very well at the moment, with unemployment falling and the regional economy reviving strongly. We must do everything to encourage that. I understand the sensitivities when one of the great names in a region is involved in a takeover bid. That has occurred before, and it will occur again. I am sure that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will be aware that all that Ministers can, and will, do is to apply the national policies for which we answer to the House. We must apply the law laid clown by the House and stick by the principles that we set out in the Blue Paper on monopolies and mergers. We believe that that is essentially in the interests of the Yorkshire and Humberside economy and the national economy. I do not believe that the northern or Yorkshire economies can be protected by introducing special rules to stop the free movement of capital into that area while such capital is moving strongly into the rest of the country.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Before taking the decision not to refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, was the Minister aware of the strong feelings of hon. Members on both sides of the House, Cadbury, the Rowntree work force and the Confederation of British Industry? He has said that the employment consequences are not his concern. They should be his concern. He should be concerned for the

13,000 people in Rowntree, including the 600 in my constituency, who are worried sick. My constituency has just lost 10,000 jobs because of the rapid rundown of the mining industry. Rowntree is a major employer, and there is no guarantee for the work force that they will keep their jobs. Should the Minister not be concerned?

Mr. Clarke: I did not say that I was not concerned. I said that I do not determine the employment patterns of British companies. It is not for Ministers to decide that. We create the economic climate in which companies are best placed to expand, prosper and increase the amount of employment that they offer. If Rowntree had remained untouched by any offer, I would not have answered questions about how many would be employed at a particular factory. I do not approve of an economic system in which Ministers claim that they determine that. At the moment I do not believe that anyone is threatening the continued manufacture of Rowntree or Cadbury chocolates in this country. We are arguing about the ownership of the capital and whether that should be left to the shareholders to determine in the usual way.

Mr. Robert Banks: Does my right hon and learned Friend recognise that the decision will be met with deep disappointment by many people in Yorkshire, who will be worried that the bare threat of takeover facing this great Yorkshire company will proceed? Does he agree that this is a lost opportunity for bringing pressure to bear on the Swiss Government and Swiss companies to bring their company structures into line with those in the majority of companies in this country? Will he review the criteria for the terms of reference for referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?

Mr. Clarke: I understand the deep concern felt by all my hon. Friends who represent Yorkshire constituencies, and most of them have now been called to express those concerns. We all have local loyalties, and my judgment of issues is often quite properly coloured by my perception of local issues. Normally, most of my hon. Friends who have spoken agree with me on economic and industrial policy. I have a feeling that if we were talking about a great Nottinghamshire company several of my hon. Friends who speak for Yorkshire would not have thought there was anything wrong with our refusal to refer a bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. Pat Wall: Will the Minister reconsider the interests of the Rowntree employees, because their labour has created the wealth over which the predators are now squabbling? Have they not the right to a ballot to defend their jobs., particularly as they cannot go to the courts against this intimidation and the likely secondary picketing by Suchard, General Cinema and Cadbury?

Mr. Clarke: The fact that many people want to own a company is not altogether bad news for those who work in it. I understand that many employees feel unsettled when they discover that someone is competing for the ownership of the company. I believe that the reason why people are trying to buy companies is that they see Britain as an attractive place in which to invest and to use as a manufacturing base for the European market that we are putting together for 1992. I understand all the fears, but I


do not believe that there is anything special in this case which justifies referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

Mr. John Maples: I want to change the tone a little by telling my right hon. and learned Friend just how welcome his decision is, particularly in view of all the chauvinistic whingeing that we have heard from people who until a few weeks ago had no idea that Nestlé was not a British company. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Britain and British companies have benefited enormously from their freedom to invest abroad and that we are the last country that should erect artificial barriers to international investment?

Mr. Clarke: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is referring to English or Yorkshire nationalism, but I am grateful for his support. I agree that the average consumer and the average employee did not feel so strongly about the nationality of the shareholders until this issue arose. It will be interesting to see in the Tea Room how many people boycott Branston pickle, Ashbourne water and all the goods made by Nestlé, most of which are made in the north of England and Scotland.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware that when I visit the Rowntree company in my constituency tomorrow I shall expect anything but a welcome for this afternoon's statement? He suggests that decisions on jobs in my constituency and elsewhere should be left to the shareholders and the two competitors. Will he accept that that will cut very little ice in an area where we were given precisely the same arguments over the Guinness takeover, when those pledges mattered not at all? How many more jobs does he expect us to lose in the pursuit of the philosophy that he appears to endorse?

Mr. Clarke: I do not know the basis on which so many people are asserting that the change of ownership in itself

is likely to lead to a reduction in jobs. The number of jobs involved in the manufacturing of chocolate in this country will presumably be determined by the management—under whatever ownership—deciding how to win a share of the United Kingdom and European chocolate market. When the hon. Gentleman visits his constituency tomorrow no doubt he will put forward alternative propositions about what should happen. The Labour party finance and industry group said that merger policy should give
prime attention to the wider economic aims of a Labour Government.
I know which I would put most trust in. A merger policy simply based on the economic aims of the previous Labour Government would offer little reassurance for jobs or anything else to the hon. Gentleman's constituents or to those of anyone else.

Sir Hector Monro: I appreciate the constituency interests of my hon. Friends. Will my right hon. and learned Friend give them some encouragement by accepting from me that Nestlé took over one of the largest factories in my constituency a year or two ago, since when everything has gone from strength to strength for investment and employment? The future might be much brighter than my hon. Friends expect.

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Had we approached these matters differently we would have blocked hundreds of takeovers by foreign companies during the last two or three years which have led to the same reassuring satisfactory consequences for firms as those described by my hon. Friend.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that I have managed to call all those hon. Members with a direct interest in this matter. There will be other opportunities on the Adjournment motion later.

Property Services Agency

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the future of the Property Services Agency.
The Government have decided that the PSA should become a commercial organisation. In reaching this decision, we have taken account of a report prepared by Messrs. Deloitte Haskins and Sells on the introduction of commercial accounting into the PSA. Copies of that report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. We have also paid special attention to the report on PSA which the Select Committee on the Environment prepared under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi).
Last July my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced that, from 1 April this year, there would he a new relationship between Departments and the PSA on major civil projects. Those payment and untying arrangements will now be extended to cover the range of services, defence as well as civil, offered by the PSA. The extended arrangements will be fully in place by 1 April 1990. By 1 April 1990, also, PSA will be reorganised into three businesses, as recommended by Deloittes. Two of these will be services businesses, covering project services and estates services. For the third, PSA will continue to manage, on behalf of the Government, the common user element of the civil estate. A substantial amount of property, however, will become the responsibility of individual Departments. I hope to make substantial progress in implementing that reorganisation before the completion date of 1 April 1990.
PSA will continue to seek opportunities to contract out functions to the private sector. I shall keep the process of contracting out under continuous review.
The changes are designed to expose the PSA to outside competition as rapidly as possible, and to equip the PSA to compete effectively, but further measures are needed if the PSA is to operate on a fully commercial basis. I have therefore decided that the PSA should become a Government trading fund, as proposed both by Deloittes and by the Select Committee. In line with the timetable set out by Deloittes, I look to the PSA to put as much of its operations as practicable on a trading fund basis no later than I April 1993.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has agreed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence should take over responsibility from me in two areas. First, estate agency functions on the defence estate, both in the United Kingdom and overseas, will transfer on 1 October 1988. Secondly, some 200 industrial staff who are employed in the PSA's directly employed labour force to carry out specific and permanent tasks at defence establishments will transfer on 1 April 1989. By 1 April 1990, as arrangements are developed to put PSA's relationship with MOD on to an untied basis, up to 800 more of those industrial staff will be transferred.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is the Secretary of State aware that the reasons set out for the creation of the PSA in its present form are as valid now as they were when it was created by the Conservative Government in 1972?

Its role is to provide, manage and maintain Government property, including defence establishments, courts, research laboratories, training centres and land. We see a continuing need for such a role in the public interest.
Is the Secretary of State aware that we support the aim of greater efficiency in the Civil Service and within the public sector? Surely the proposals are aimed at preparing the PSA for its dismemberment and ultimate sale. If better commercial practice and performance is the objective, will the Secretary of State assure the House that the restructured PSA, as announced today, will be totally free to compete on equal terms with the private sector, without ministerial interference, and as recommended by the House of Commons Environment Select Committee? If he cannot give the House that assurance, are not his arguments for better performance on commercial terms simply exposed as bogus?
The PSA has been trusted to build the Clyde submarine base, which is intended for
The UK Trident strategic system and the expanding fleet of nuclear and conventional submarines. The development is one of the most challenging projects ever undertaken.
If the PSA has been trusted to do that work, is it efficient
in carrying it out? If it is inefficient, why was it trusted with such a critical and expensive project in the first place? Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain that decision in favour of the PSA undertaking such complicated expensive work which the Government have already endorsed.
If the Ministry of Defence, which currently provides some 60 per cent. of PSA work, is no longer obliged to use it, what are the implications for jobs, especially regional employment, and for security? There are, for example, more than 1,600 jobs in the north-east of England that will be at risk as a result of the Government's decision and as many more in Scotland. How many of the 24,000 PSA jobs does the Secretary of State estimate will eventually go as a result of that decision?
In general, the PSA gives the taxpayer a good deal. Its chief executive a—distinguished civil servant—is SirGordon Manzie, who is trusted and whose annual report has been endorsed by the Secretary of State. In that report Sir Gordon says:
comparisons have shown PSA to be competitive with its private sector counterparts.
If that is true, what can be achieved by the Government announcement today? Surely that announcement exposes as bogus the Secretary of State's claims about commercial improvement. The Government's statement is simply a triumph of dogma and ideology over British public interest.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) managed to wax himself into a paroxysm of apprehension about what I believe to be a helpful and progressive statement regarding improvements to the efficiency and management of the Government's estate. I agree that it is the PSA's defined role—laid down when it was set up in 1972—that we are now seeking to develop. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acknowledgement that greater efficiency is something that we should strive for, and that is what the statement seeks to achieve.
Curiously enough, I also welcome the hon. Gentleman's call for the PSA to be able to compete with the private sector. In effect, that is a request for a future Government to privatise suitable parts of the PSA. I welcome that request from the hon. Gentleman, just as I


welcomed his enormous concern about the critical and important nature of the Trident base—he was right to stress its importance. I have no doubt in the abilities of the PSA both in that respect and in respect of the many other functions that it performs for Government Departments, including the Ministry of Defence. I believe that it will supply sponsor Departments with the very best service, and in that case it will continue to prosper.
I believe that there will be no threat to jobs. The hon. Gentleman got the figures regarding jobs connected with the Ministry of Defence slightly wrong. In future, however, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will answer for that. As I said in my statement, up to 1,750 PSA staff will probably transfer to the MOD. Those are the staff that the MOD will need to manage its estates. The PSA is already contracting out about 85 per cent. of its physical work, so perhaps the MOD will be able to improve upon that transfer figure slightly. A great deal of work is already contracted out and the people employed on such contracts manage the estates. Therefore, there will be no threat to their jobs.

Sir Hugh Rossi: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement inasmuch as it accepts two main recommendations of the Select Committee: the creation of the PSA as a trading fund, and the untying of the defence establishments. Contrary to the statement made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the Labour Members who served on the Committee listened carefully to all the evidence, studied the effects of the recommendations and were completely in agreement with those recommendations and accordingly, no doubt, with the statement that my right hon. Friend has just made.
May I say to my right hon. Friend in criticism that the way in which answers to Select Committee reports are presented to the House in a piecemeal fashion is more than unsatisfactory. We have had a memorandum, a partial reply in a private Member's motion, and now a statement. It would be far more satisfactory if all these matters could be dealt with by way of Command Papers and we could then properly study the Government's replies to very carefully thought out recommendations of Select Committees. I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is in his place to hear that criticism of matters of procedure.
As far as I can tell, all the recommendations of the Select Committee on the PSA have now been accepted, except that I do not know where we stand on the recommendations that
a central body of PSA expertise should be retained as one unit for specialist advice and as landlord of the Civil Office and Storage Estate; and … allowed to manage the Civil Office and Storage Estate more positively, as a major property resource".
Where do we stand on those recommendations—the last major recommendations of my Committee?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I consider that the report on the PSA to which we are referring was one of the very best reports that Select Committees have produced for a long time. I pay tribute to all the members of that Select Committee. The report was so good that the

Government have more or less agreed to every recommendation, although they were major recommendations.
I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse us for the delay in providing an answer, but the report raised some very complicated matters which had to be pursued and that took rather longer than I should have liked. The delay was to enable us to meet the recommendations. On the other hand, Select Committees like an early Government reply, so we were in a dilemma. I hope that my hon. Friend feels that the delay has been worth while to achieve the results that the Select Committee suggested.
Of course, the PSA will continue to give specialist advice to Government Departments about property management. That function will not be disturbed. The expertise is there at present and will continue.
In regard to the ownership of the civil estate, as I said in my statement, a large common user element of the Government's property will remain the responsibility of the PSA, but where facilities are purely for the use of Departments, such as in many defence matters, the ownership will transfer to the Department concerned. The exact dividing line between the common estate and the property which goes to individual Departments has yet to be defined, but I hope that that definition answers my hon. Friend in principle. As he said, we have accepted the recommendations about the trading fund and about untying.

Mr. James Wallace: Does the Secretary of State accept that if his proposals will lead to Government Departments, not least the Ministry of Defence, having greater flexibility to economise through engaging contractors which offer a price lower than that of the PSA, that will generally be welcomed?
Can the right hon. Gentleman give any guarantee that the reservoir of expertise mentioned by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) will be retained and that there will not be a proliferation of mini-PSAs which could lead to the loss of the advantages achieved through economies of scale?
Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to speculate on the implications of commercialisation for the care and maintenance of this building? Does he foresee charges for the showers, for example?

Mr. Ridley: On the first point, any Department will be able to obtain the best price it can for maintenance or work to its own property as a result of untying. The hon. Gentleman welcomed that.
Secondly, the PSA will remain as a body and will continue to have specialist knowledge which will be available to those from any branch of Government who want to consult it and to Government Departments which will be free to use the PSA as the agent for managing their properties.
Thirdly, I propose no change in the arrangements under which the Palace of Westminster is run. In this case, the landlord is a royal one and the PSA manages the building on behalf of the landlord in conjunction with the Services Committee of the House.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I strongly support my right hon. Friend's announcement. May I put two questions to him? First, is it not more likely that jobs in the economy will be increased by his announcement as the skills within the public sector will be transferred to the


private sector and will not only become available to the public sector but will be exploited through the British civil engineering industry across the world?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend consider, in the dispersal of the Government estate to separate Departments, urging those Departments to use contract management from the private sector for the management of those estates, as well as enjoying the additional freedom of overall responsibility that he has given them?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is very likely that the development of the policy will lead to a strengthening of the private sector. There is no reason why it should lead to a reduction in the numbers employed by the PSA if it can continue to justify its activities by winning work from Departments.
On my right hon. Friend's second question, it will be up to the Departments to manage their own property from now on. I hope that he will urge Departments to follow the course of obtaining the best offer for managing their estates, whether it be from the PSA or from the private sector, as well as contracting out maintenance and new construction work.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Secretary of State said that the Select Committee report was a good report. As a member of the Select Committee, I must say that even better reports are still awaiting his response. Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance that the statement is not a prelude to privatisation? Will he further give an assurance that the trade unions will be consulted fully and their views given due consideration?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that one of the major problems that the PSA faces is that the Departments that it serves are sometimes very unclear in giving to the PSA work requirements, both in their initial instructions and when changing their minds? That causes major problems for the PSA. Will the Minister try to ensure that it does not occur in future?

Mr. Ridley: Whether reports from Select Committees are good ones must await my view. The hon. Gentleman cannot put those words into my mouth before I have decided.
Privatisation may become a possibility which the staff prefer when the three businesses have been separated. They may well wish to go into the private sector to compete for a greater share of the work available. We cannot prejudge that as it will be many years before we reach that position. Trade unions will be consulted from this afternoon about the announcement that I have just made.
The lack of clarity of the intentions and needs of Government Departments which has made life very difficult for the PSA in looking after its buildings has been in part the cause of the changes that I have announced this afternoon. From now on, Departments will be responsible for managing their own buildings and for paying for that management. They will therefore have a much greater incentive to seek the best value for money than if the costs of whatever changes they make halfway through fall upon the PSA. which is hardly fair on it.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have

a busy day ahead of us. I ask for brief questions, and certainly not questions that have been asked before.

Mr. James Couchman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his wise decision to take the PSA into a full commercial position. If I have a criticism, it is that it will take a very long time to establish it as a trading fund and 1993 seems a long way ahead. After all, we have fully privatised greater public utilities in rather less time.
In regard to the Ministry of Defence assuming responsibility for its estates, what will happen to those estate management matters which are currently in train? Will the MOD assume responsibility for those matters ahead of I October, or will the PSA take its responsibility beyond 1 October? My right hon. Friend is very well aware that there are matters in my constituency which are of significant importance to my constituents.

Mr. Ridley: I agree that it is a pity that it will take so long to attain a full trading fund, but that is the estimate of the PSA and our consultants, Messrs. Deloittes, who believe that it cannot be done quicker. That is the time that it will take to move a large organisation from vote accounting to having full commercial accounts in a trading fund because of the immense changes that are necessary, each of which underlines the difference between a Government Department and a commercial organisation.
I shall soon have to ask my hon. Friend to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence how he will manage the contracts that he needs for the defence estate. I am sure that he will wish the smooth transitional arrangements to continue and contracts that are in train will obviously be treated differently from contracts that will be let after 1 October.

Mr. John Garrett: What will be the required rate of return from the three businesses? Will it be rigged in order to make them uncompetitive compared with the private sector? Is it intended to make political appointments to head them?

Mr. Ridley: I shall be able to set targets for the three businesses once we have three businesses in a few years' time, but not now. The staff of the PSA will remain civil servants, as they are at present, until such time as the new era is reached.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: Much as I applaud the management changes that my right hon. Friend has proposed today, will he, following his answer to the last question, make sure that the staff understand their forward terms and conditions of employment so that we avoid the turmoil that we are now experiencing on the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers?

Mr. Ridley: I confirm that there will be no change in the status or position of any PSA staff as a result of what have announced this afternoon. They remain civil servants. The PSA is run by a permanent secretary, to whom I pay tribute, as did the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). There is a small advisory board that is purely advisory, but, for the rest, all members, whether they go to the MOD or stay with the PSA, will remain in exactly the same position as at present—as civil servants.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: How much were Deloittes paid for their report?

Mr. Ridley: I have no idea.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in evidence to the PAC, it was clear over the years that the PSA needed to be released from some of its shackles, and to that extent my hon. Friend's statement is welcome? However, can he assure us that one of the trading functions—the servicing of boilers, lifts and so on—will not simply result in a major direct labour department under the PSA?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is time that we made the move that I have outlined. Some people are best directly employed in the maintenance and looking after of property, but equally there is always scope for contracting out and from now on it will be for individual Departments which own their own properties to take those decisions. The PSA will continue to decide whether to contract out the sort of work to which my hon. Friend is referring in relation to the common user element in the civil estate.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why could not the Minister give a straight answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) on who will be heading the three companies in preparation for privatisation? Will there be any friends of his, or civil servants, distinguished or otherwise, heading them up? Could ex-Ministers have a lucrative number in the future? Why cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a guarantee that nobody will be latching on to any of these slush funds?

Mr. Ridley: I have made it clear that as the PSA becomes three separate businesses the whole staff will be civil servants who will be interchangeable with civil servants from other Departments. If new arrangements are proposed in five years' time, that will be the time for the hon. Gentleman to expect an answer to his question.

Mr. Michael Fallon: If, by his statement, my right hon. Friend is preparing the three businesses for early privatisation, is he not to be congratulated? If he is not, is he not astounded by his own moderation?

Mr. Ridley: I do not know which of my hon. Friend's interpretations to claim. It will take the five years until 1993 to obtain the accounts necessary and to separate the three businesses. I make it plain that the business that owns the common user estate is unlikely to be privatised because, clearly, we cannot make ourselves tenants throughout all Government properties, particularly in the Whitehall area. Whether the other two businesses should be privatised will become much clearer when they become established.

Mr. Ian Gow: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the great majority of the land and buildings used by Government Departments is used by individual Departments and so his announcement today means that almost all the owners of the Government estate will be at liberty to use the private sector? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend try to accelerate his timetable for setting up the trading fund? Will he acknowledge that many Conservative Members want him to accelerate a programme of full privatisation for the whole of the PSA?

Mr. Ridley: Those Departments with special user directed buildings, such as the courts buildings of the Lord Chancellor, or the buildings solely concerned with

agriculture of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—those are just examples; there are many more—will pass to the Departments concerned. However, a Government office is unlikely to transfer because it may house one Department for a period and later switch to another Department. As such, that is part of the common user estate. I shall be able to give more details of the precise split between departmental property and the common user estate after more work has been done.
I agree that it would be desirable to accelerate the proposals in the statement as fast as possible, but we have already tried to do that and our accountants, Messrs. Deloittes, have advised us that if we meet the target of 1993 for the trading fund, we shall be doing well. However, a Government of the same colour will still be in place then and will be ready to take the next step.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the regional office of the PSA in my constituency welcomes his proposals as being sensible? However, I am sure that the PSA staff would like the reassurance that, if they are to lose their traditional client base, they will be free to win contracts on a new wider client base within the private sector, such as in the nationalised industries, the National Health Service, and so on.

Mr. Ridley: It was on a visit to the regional office in my hon. Friend's constituency, when I discussed this matter a year or two ago with the staff, that I confirmed that this was the right direction for us to go and I am sure that they will feel the same now. The new businesses have a lot of work to do to become established and we should leave matters as they are at the moment. However, if there are invitations and strong pressure for those new businesses to compete in the private sector, that will be a compelling reason for privatising them.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but does he agree that there is a possibility that, in the separation into three units, there may be an increase in the arm's length relationship between those placing the order and those doing the work that has been missing for some time? Secondly, may we hope that there will be a better use of resources and property, in particular property going to the MOD? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be better to leave people living in such property than to leave it empty?

Mr. Ridley: I believe that the separation will lead to more arm's length relationships and less arm twisting, which I am sure is what my hon. Friend would like. It will help the Ministry of Defence to identify surplus property and make disposals, and to ensure that any empty houses are either occupied or sold. However, the majority of empty MOD houses are far away from distressed areas of housing shortage.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for brief questions. It would be helpful if these matters could be raised on the Adjournment.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I welcome this overdue move towards commercial management on a trading fund basis. Will my right hon. Friend elaborate on the third of his new PSA companies, that holding civil land


and property? As there is an increasing shortage of commercial sites, particularly in the south of England, will my right hon. Friend oblige the new company to dispose of property wherever possible so that it can achieve its full potential in the market place?

Mr. Ridley: I agree with my hon. Friend, but disposals from the PSA are currently running at £40 million or £50 million per year, which is a remarkable figure. I pay tribute to the agency for the diligence with which it has disposed of surplus Government land and property. There is not much more scope for increasing that figure, and I do not imagine that my hon. Friend would want us to go as far as selling, for example, the freehold of the Treasury.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents will be heartily relieved if someone moves in to sort out and tighten up on the excesses of the Property Services Agency at Hampton Court palace? Can he say how his policy for improving the administration there will interact with his new proposals?

Mr. Ridley: As my hon. Friend knows, we have already taken steps to establish an agency to manage Hampton Court palace, and those arrangements are going well. That in itself means untying the PSA from being the monopoly building adviser and contractor at Hampton Court palace. In a sense, that decision pre-dates the statement I have just made. In either case, Hampton Court palace will be free to seek the advice, the design and the contracting work which it finds of greatest value for money in what it has to do.

Mr. Chris Butler: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how the management of the British Library project will be affected under the new commercial arrangements he has described? What would happen if the Property Services Agency ran severely over budget in respect of that project?

Mr. Ridley: Contracts already in existence and operating will continue to be managed as at present. That would apply to the British Library. If the Property Services Agency, having bid for the project, fails to make sufficient money to cover its costs and loses money, it will be necessary for it to account to the Treasury. In due course, the Treasury would decide whether or not to make good that which it had lost.

Mr. Richard Holt: As a member of the Select Committee on the Environment, I endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) and of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). When it comes to relocating the three new companies, will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to making the north of England the area to which they are directed?

Mr. Ridley: I have asked the PSA to consider what scope there is for relocating its operations and staff well in advance of anything that may arise from my statement. That is now being done. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not expect me to suggest any particular locations, but both the PSA and the Government are keen to devolve as many functions and staff as they can to localities where the resultant jobs will be welcome and where houses will not be so expensive.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. However, in the past there has been a major problem in dealing with defence property because of the PSA's influence. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in future it will be easier to dispose of surplus land and houses currently owned by the MOD as a result of the PSA's reorganisation?

Mr. Ridley: It will certainly be no more difficult. The decision whether to dispose of land or property has always been one for the Ministry of Defence, which has always owned its own property. We are now giving it the personnel necessary to manage the estate agent, maintenance and new build functions. I hope that the Ministry will be able to dispose of surplus properties, as my hon. Friend suggests. I believe it will help the Ministry to be itself in control of the estate agent function in identifying and putting on to the market property which it does not need.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are eight officials in the Box. The Secretary of State for the Environment has a particularly athletic PPS. I asked a very short question about the cost of Deloittes' report. Could not one of the Minister's officials, through his PPS, have provided the information I sought?

Mr. Speaker: The PPS looks to be in very good shape, but I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question.

Local Authority Searches and Enquiries, Etc.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to expedite local authority searches and enquiries and for other purposes.
There are two types of information which potential house purchasers require of local authorities. First, they need to search the land charges register; secondly, they need answers to additional inquiries. Local authorities have a statutory duty under the Local Land Charges Act 1975 to register local land charges. Everyone has a statutory right to inspect those registers at any time. The fee is set by the Lord Chancellor.
Additional inquiries are answered by voluntary agreement. There are 18 basic questions in all. Although the searches and the inquiries are technically quite separate, conveyancers usually apply for both together, and they are known collectively as the local searches. Before a purchaser commits himself to signing a contract, he needs answers to the questions contained in the local searches. Most building societies will not release mortgage money until they are satisfied that such searches and inquiries have been completed.
The problem of delays in completing those searches is not new. It was highlighted by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in his House Buyers Bill in 1983. However, it related only to the statutory search, and it was later dropped. The matter was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), who I am delighted to see is present in the Chamber this afternoon, as someone who is continually vigilant in confronting the problems which face house buyers. My hon. Friend raised the matter in an Adjournment debate in February, when he produced statistical information contained in a report by the conveyancing standing committee of the Law Commission published last December. That report presented options and proposals for improving the system, and it invited comments by March of this year.
This month, the Woolwich building society also took up the question of delays and commissioned a survey in 37 towns and cities in England and Wales. That society's local branch managers were asked to obtain information from solicitors involved in conveyancing. Half of those interviewed responded that the service given by their local authorities is not very satisfactory. The delays revealed by the Woolwich survey averaged four weeks across the sample with the average going up to seven weeks in the metropolitan areas. It revealed a staggering 20 weeks in the London boroughs of Lambeth and Hackney. Most conveyancers in the survey expressed the view that a delay of one to two weeks is acceptable. The conveyancing standing committee suggested as accepable a delay of 10 days. It regards as reasonable a period that will not of itself cause any delay to routine conveyancing procedures.
Various reasons were given for delays. They included staff shortages and pressure of work. That may be true in

certain local authorities where the housing activity of the past year or so has increased dramatically. Planning departments in my constituency are receiving twice the number of applications. Organisational difficulties were also mentioned, because the forms are often completed by different departments in different parts of the same building or in separate buildings. Another reason given for delay was fluctuating demand. District councils in my own constituency can turn around searches and inquiries in five to seven days. If it is possible there, why cannot other councils do the same?
Although delays are not universal and they vary in degree, the conveyancing standing committee of the Law Commission believes that the problem needs tackling immediately. The Bill seeks to speed up local authority searches now, and to encourage changes to simplify and streamline procedures for the future.
First, the Bill will seek to penalise local authorities that take more than 10 days to return the completed forms. If, after 10 days, they have not completed them, they will forfeit half the fee. If a further 10 days elapse and they still have not completed the forms, they will forfeit the whole fee. In addition, at that 20-day point, the house purchaser or his conveyancer will have a statutory right to instigate a personal search free of charge. A scheme of similar penalties was suggested by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby in 1983, and by my hon Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire in his Adjournment debate. It has also been put forward as an option by the conveyancing standing committee.
As a help in the longer term, my Bill seeks to promote computerisation of search procedures. The conveyancing standing committee thinks that that would be a medium-term solution for, say, five years. The Association of District Councils, however, considers that unduly pessimistic, pointing out that two authorities, Wigan and Portsmouth, are currently undergoing pilot schemes for computerisation, which should be on stream very soon. If it is successful, there is no reason why other local authorities cannot take it up fairly quickly.
House buyers and vendors alike are justifiably annoyed and upset, and their conveyancers are frustrated and irritated, when it takes an unreasonably long time to exchange contracts on a house. There is no doubt that such delays fuel the practice of gazumping. It is surely unacceptable that some local authorities offer the house-buying public a service that is at times so slow and erratic as to be rendered virtually useless. It is time that this unacceptable inefficiency was stopped.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Malcolm Moss, Mr. John Heddle, Mr. Tony Favell, Mr. Roger Knapman, Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Timothy Kirkhope, Mr. Irvine Patnick, Mr. Anthony Coombs, Miss Ann Widdecombe and Mr. Tim Boswell.

LOCAL AUTHORITY SEARCHES AND ENQUIRIES, ETC.

Mr. Malcolm Ross accordingly presented a Bill to expedite local authority searches and enquiries and for other purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 171.]

Adjournment (Spring)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 27th May, do adjourn until Tuesday 7th June, and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 27th May until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Durant]

Mr. Harold McCusker: I shall not detain the House for long. In fact, I would not be speaking to the motion at all if the slightest parliamentary courtesy had been extended to the people of Northern Ireland, their elected representatives and, for that matter, the House by the Northern Ireland Office today, when it presented to the House a White Paper. I am sure that only you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and very few other Members of the House are aware of its having been presented. It was presented to us under plain cover, and no doubt was presented to the House under plain cover as well—or they slipped in in carpet slippers to avoid being heard.
Two important issues have already been discussed here this afternoon, and three important issues were discussed yesterday before the debate on the remaining business of the House. Here we have had a White Paper dealing with major issues regarding employment in Northern Ireland, yet once again the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ignores elected representatives from the Province and, indeed, the whole House. That is a disgrace, and it is a disgrace that the House should adjourn before we have had an opportunity to ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland some questions about what he is proposing.
It is nothing new for the Leader of the House to hear this complaint. I have been making it regularly for the past 12 months. He will also know that I absented myself from the House for two years as a protest against the way in which Northern Ireland was being governed. During that period, the one constant whine for me to come back came from none other than the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who continually exhorted me to come here, saying that this was the place in which to discuss the affairs of Northern Ireland, not the streets of the Province. I came back 12 months ago and, with my colleagues, have been treated with nothing but contempt ever since. That contempt reached its pinnacle today with the presentation of the White Paper without a word to the House from the Secretary of State.
Of course, outside the House everything is different. The White Paper, which was not available to me until 3.30 this afternoon, was available at 11 am to the media in Northern Ireland and at midday to the media in London. At this moment the media in Northern Ireland and London are receiving a private briefing on the contents. No doubt they are asking the sort of questions that the Secretary of State wants to hear and no doubt he will answer them, but he will not be hearing the questions that Northern Ireland Members would like to ask.
The White Paper projects the concept of fair employment in Northern Ireland and how it is to be achieved. It makes it a criminal offence for an employer in Northern Ireland not to keep registers of the religious affiliations of his employees and submit an annual return on that basis. That is a significant development. Until comparatively recently in Northern Ireland, employers were criticised for allegedly inquiring into the religious

affiliations of their potential employees. Now it will be a criminal offence if they do not do so. Let me say with all the conviction that I can muster—and I am sure that I speak for all my colleagues—that I believe in appointment on merit alone.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The Prime Minister does.

Mr. McCusker: In that regard I agree with what the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box last week. If anyone disputes that assertion, I challenge him to go to where I was employed for six years before I came to this House and check my record there. An employer is a fool to do other than employ on merit alone, because in the current extremely difficult business circumstances, particularly in Northern Ireland, it is nonsense for an employer to believe that he can sustain and progress in his business by employing second best simply because he does not like the religion of another applicant. To make it a criminal offence not to register the religious affiliations of the work force is hardly likely to improve the position.
The Government commissioned PA International Consulting Services Ltd. to sell the nation to the business communities and others in Northern Ireland. Of course, the Government continue to contend that it is not in conflict with the principle of merit alone to ask employers to keep such registers. In a commentary on the issue, Mr. Dermot O'Callaghan made an important point:
It is important to make it clear that equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of outcome.
He has put forward the argument to try to console employers that, provided they can prove that they have provided equality of opportunity, if equality of outcome does not arise they have nothing to fear. I wonder how long that concept will be sustained.
It is almost exactly 12 years to the day that we debated the first Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill, which became the present Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. On that occasion I was told by the Minister responsible that I was guilty of mischief-making, of making misleading statements and of scaremongering by suggesting that the Act would lead one day to employers having to keep registers of the religious affiliations of their employees. I have the relevant Hansardreport with me, in case anyone disputes that. I was laughed out of the Chamber.
Just as it was clear then that ultimately the day would come when religious affiliation registers were kept, it is clear now that the suggestion that equality of opportunity is not to be confused with equality of outcome will be forgotten and that we shall move to a sytem of quotas. If an employer's register does not begin to reflect the religious composition of his area, it will be suggested that he prove that he is doing what is right by producing workplace statistics amounting to quotas.
I shall not rehearse all the arguments that we shall have when the White Paper is translated into legislation. Instead I shall pose the questions that my hon. Friend and I might have wanted to pose to the Secretary of State had he had the stomach to come and face us this afternoon. Let us take a look at the right hon. Gentleman's own record. We may expect an English politician presiding over Northern Ireland who produces a White Paper such as this to want to set a good example. Yet the Northern Ireland Office has a worse record of employing Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland than any other Government


Department. It employs 14 per cent. Roman Catholics in the Province. I do not believe for one moment that the Secretary of State or those whom he employs are guilty of religious discrimination. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman was put to it he could explain why that is the case. There may be very good reasons that have nothing to do with religious discrimination. But he does not listen to that argument when it comes from other sources.
Lest the House should think that the record of the Northern Ireland Office is only marginally worse than that of other Government Departments, let me give the figures. The DHSS in Northern Ireland employs 49 per cent. Roman Catholics—almost 50 per cent. higher than the proportion of Roman Catholics in the community. The Department of Economic Development employs 40 per cent. Roman Catholics—well over their representation in the community. The overall average for the Civil Service in Northern Ireland is 33·7 per cent—about the same as the proportion of Roman Catholics in the community. Let us ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as he will be asking private sector employers, "Why do you employ only 14 per cent. Roman Catholics?"
I should also have liked to ask the Secretary of State about the implications of the White Paper for the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the prison service. Those services probably employ only between 5 and 10 per cent. Roman Catholics, and they are frequently abused as sectarian organisations because they have so few Roman Catholics. Anyone who knows anything about Northern Ireland knows that that is not because of religious discrimination; there are other reasons. What is the Secretary of State doing to encourage the Catholic community to supply more people to those services, in which they are rightly required? Or is that community to be allowed to say, "We shall opt out of playing our part in certain essential occupations in the Province but we demand our quota and more in other occupations"? I should have been interested to hear what the Secretary of State had to say about that. We must also consider the ancillary staff employed by those organisations. What are the ramifications for ancillary staff who may be occupying very sensitive positions?
Not only will it be a criminal offence not to keep a register; there will be a series of penalties. Contractors and others who fail to comply will not be allowed access to Government grants. They will not be allowed to tender for Government contracts. What will happen to that most critical of Government contracts—a contract to rebuild a bomb-damaged police station or Army camp? Does the Secretary of State really intend to say to the few contractors left that they cannot have the contract? Many contractors have been murdered. The major contractor was murdered a short time ago, as was his general manager, and there is a death threat hanging over all the remaining principals in the company. Through no fault of its own, that company probably employs a majority of Protestants as Roman Catholics are terrified to work for it. Do the Government propose to say, "Sorry. We cannot let you repair our police stations and Army bases because you do not have the right religious balance"? Are they to be denied Government grant and contracts? I should have liked to hear the Secretary of State's answer to that.
What would the Secretary of State say to employers in west Belfast? I heard the political correspondent of Radio Telefis Eireann suggest that there was 90 per cent. unemployment in west Belfast. That means that if we go on this way there will soon be 110 per cent. unemployment. Of course that is nonsense. The figure is damnable, but in fact it is about 30 per cent. That means that there is 70 per cent. employment in west Belfast, much of it provided by bona fide Roman Catholic employers. Are we really to suggest to employers who employ a 100 per cent. Roman Catholic work force of necessity that they must set themselves a target for the next couple of years to get rid of 70 per cent. of their employees and recruit people from Sandy row, the Shankill road or east Belfast, as is being suggested to employees in east Belfast?
It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to produce a glossy White Paper which is
Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by Command of Her Majesty. May 1988
and fail to come to the House to answer essential questions affecting the well-being of all the people of Northern Ireland.
What is the bottom line? We have 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. unemployment and there will be no real improvement in the balance until there are more job opportunities. My principal question to the Secretary of State concerns the chances of real improvement in job opportunities in Northern Ireland. What policies is the right hon. Gentleman pursuing to improve the number of jobs available? Or is it suggested that to get this imaginary balance right about 25,000 employed Protestants will have to get themselves unemployed over the next few years, and 25,000 unemployed Roman Catholics will have to be slotted into their jobs? Without more job opportunities, that is the only way to achieve the balance.
It is a disgrace that the Secretary of State has not been here to answer my questions, and I hope that even before Friday the Leader of the House will exhort him to come before the House.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: I wish to raise two matters with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House before we adjourn. I make no apology for raising once more the question of Manchester airport. On Monday 16 May mine was the second motion listed for debate. In my 25 years as a Member of the House it was the first time that I had been lucky enough to get into the first three, but perhaps luck was with the House, because my motion was not reached. We spent most of the time talking about planning procedures, which was of great interest to many of my friends from the south-east. Therefore, I propose to say briefly today what I would have said at greater length had I had the opportunity on 16 May.
Since 1979 Manchester airport has expanded more rapidly than any other United Kingdom airport, and for that I am grateful. I pay tribute to the work done by successive Secretaries of State for Transport in Conservative Administrations, whose efforts have been much appreciated in our area. Like Oliver Twist, we are asking for more. We want more intercontinental flights in and out of Manchester. I find it scarcely credible that there are 360 flights a week from London to the United States, but only 13 from Manchester to the United States.
It cannot be right that so many people who want to travel to America from the north of England should have to go to Heathrow or Gatwick when they have a perfectly good airport at Manchester. If there were more intercontinental flights in and out of Manchester, the economy of the north would receive an enormous boost. I believe that the economic situation in the north is improving, and I want the trend to continue. Manchester airport is one of our greatest assets—someone referred to it as the jewel in the crown. I am disappointed that we have not had a satisfactory conclusion to the applications by American Airlines, Northwest Airlines and Pan American World Airways to fly into Manchester and to provide enhanced opportunities for British airlines to fly direct to the United States from Manchester.
Over the years there has been a bipartisan approach to Manchester airport. I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in the Chamber. That bipartisan approach has been supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by local authorities in the north of all political persuasions. People have worked together for the common good, and particularly for Manchester airport. I am saddened by the breakdown of that approach.
Manchester airport now has a board of directors which includes 16 Labour councillors, one Conservative councillor and one Social and Liberal Democrat councillor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too many."] Well, there was a time when the Labour party paraded on a programme of fair shares for all. I cannot see much to do with fair shares in that arrangement. For reasons best known to themselves, the directors ran an advertising campaign in support of more intercontinental flights. I agree about the need for more such flights, but I disagree with the board, in that it puts all the blame on the Government. The board was most unfair, because there are other considerations to be taken into account. The first involves British Airways, which is now running a daily flight from Manchester to New York, albeit that it starts in Gatwick. British Airways is asking for a clear run for at least two years to get the flight fully operational before it has to counter any opposition
The next problem is the view taken by the American Transportation Secretary—my right hon. Friend's opposite number in Washington. Until quite recently that position was held by Mrs. Elizabeth Dole, who unfortunately resigned to try to help her husband gain the Republican nomination. I am tempted to say, "Come back Elizabeth Dole, all is forgiven." She was much more prepared to look favourably on applications for routes than is her successor, who wants his pound of flesh. That is common sense. If the Americans are to give anything, they want something back in exchange.
I hope that that shows that the issue is not as simple as the politically motivated directors of Manchester airport have made out. By a strange coincidence, the advertising campaign was timed to appear just before the local government elections. What could have been more convenient? All my hon. Friends from the north-west were opposed to the campaign. We felt that it was a waste of money.
Having said all that, I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to understand how

strongly we feel about the negotiations that are going on between the United Kingdom and the United States. I ask them to press the case for the north as strongly as possible.
American Airlines already flies direct from Manchester to Chicago and has made an enormous success of the route. If its application to fly from Manchester to New York were granted, that would give an immediate stimulus to the economy of the north.
The other issue that I want to raise is, perhaps, more controversial. It is the need to establish in legislation a new upper gestational limit for abortions. I am not now suggesting what that limit should be, but there is no doubt that to millions of people in Britain this is a matter of national importance on which there is a pressing need for Parliament to reach a decision.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) introduced a Bill earlier this year which would have provided the House with the opportunity to arrive at a conclusion on this matter, but the Bill was scuppered by a small but determined group of opponents who used the procedures of the House to prevent it from making progress.
I cannot see what the opponents of the Bill are worried about. All that we were asking for was a little extra time to ensure that all the votes were taken. The arguments have been made. I do not think that people outside the House understand why Parliament can be prevented from expressing its will. They saw a Bill, which had a comfortable majority on Second Reading, being blocked in its final stages. They feel that there is something undemocratic about that.
I was saddened when, on business questions a couple of weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he was unable to make additional time available to compensate for the time lost on Friday 6 May. I say that because the only reason for the Abortion Act becoming law in 1967 was that the Government of the day provided extra time to ensure that the legislation could go through. If that Act, which has led to the abortion of 3 million babies, is not to remain for ever enshrined in stone, the House must find time to have the necessary votes.
All the arguments have been marshalled. All that is required is that a decision be taken. This problem will not go away. If the Abortion (Amendment) Bill fails, similar Bills will keep appearing, and the more the opponents of abortion reform do to prevent a decision being reached, the more the House will be brought into disrepute.
I do not think that there is one right hon. or hon. Member who has not been overwhelmed by the sheer weight of correspondence from constituents on this issue. That shows how strongly many people feel about the matter. There is great public outrage and frustration at the failure of the House to complete the remaining stages of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. I hope that we will be able to reach a conclusion on it before the House rises for the spring recess.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: Perhaps I might make a passing reference to the motion before raising the matter that I wish to address.
It has been the recent habit to bring the House back on a Tuesday. Unless our other procedures are changed, that will cause chaos when we try to organise our affairs, such as participating in Question Time and getting ticket


allocations. Above all, it will cause chaos for hon. Members who are serving on Standing Committees. Whether a Government Back Bencher or an Opposition Member, if one serves on a Standing Committee and the House comes back on a Tuesday rather than a Monday——

Mr. Michael Brown: Simply come down on Monday night.

Mr. Rooker: It is not as easy as that. Hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, who are serving on a Standing Committee and want to meet outside advisers and colleagues to discuss the business for the week ahead cannot do that when the House is closed on a Monday. This may sound a pettyfogging complaint about an administrative inconvenience, but our coming back on a Tuesday is a recent innovation. It came to my attention during the Committee stages of the Local Government Bill and the Local Government Finance Bill. I am pleased to say, however, that I am not serving on any Standing Committees at the moment and I have no intention of serving on any for the rest of the Session.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The change was made entirely for the convenience of the House. Many Members asked for it. I think that I, in a previous incarnation, had something to do with it the first time it happened. The main reason for the change was that hon. Members who live a long way from London would not have to travel down on a Sunday. The change was for the general convenience of hon. Members.

Mr. Rooker: That is the one respect in which I can see that the change is a convenience. In all other respects, however, such as those which I have mentioned, it is negative rather than positive.
Far be it from me to stick to the motion, but I should like now to raise a matter in respect of which we should have some answers before the recess. I freely accept that I shall not get those answers, but the matter must be raised.
This is a follow-up to the matters that I raised with the Home Secretary at Question Time on 21 April. I raised the issue of the Wormhoudt massacre of unarmed British prisoners of war on 28 May 1940. Therefore, this coming weekend is the 48th anniversary of that massacre, about 12 miles from Dunkirk, by one of Hitler's SS units.
About 80 or 90 British troops—we will never know the exact figure—unarmed members of the Royal Warwickshire and Cheshire regiments, were gunned down on the orders of one SS officer. From all the information I have read and according to the survivors, only one officer was known to be with those British troops at the time—Captain Lynn-Allen—who, in fact, was one of the first British soldiers to be killed.
From the history of the period—it happened before I was born, but I have talked to people who participated—the events of that day and of the days previous must have been chaotic. Untold acts of heroism must, and did, take place, as British Tommies fought against overwhelming odds to protect our forces retreating to Dunkirk. Many of those troops were captured. However, the vast majority of those captured were treated properly, under the Geneva convention, by professional German soldiers.
Everywhere the SS units went death followed. That is absolutely the case. Of course, there was not just this one incident, but this is the one that I wish to highlight. In fact, there was an incident two days before when an SS unit massacred unarmed British prisoners of war, who were members of the Royal Norfolk Regiment. The officer responsible for giving those orders was executed in 1949. In other words, the matter was followed up and a trial took place.
As I said in the House on 21 April—and as other hon. Members are also aware—it is clear that the responsibility for the Wormhoudt war crime is clear and unambiguous. The man responsible for that order was the then SS Captain Wilhelm Mohnke, later to rise to SS Major General and Commandant of the Reich Chancellery Defence in 1945. He escaped from Hitler's bunker on 1 or 2 May 1945. If anyone doubts that there is a prima facie case against that officer, I put on record two quotes which could be without challenge, but, unfortuntely, they come from documents which have not yet been released.
The first comes from the War Crimes Interrogation Unit Report No. 1500. It is dated 1947, but it was clearly prepared prior to June. On page 12, there is a paragraph headed "Responsibility", which states:
Responsible for the crime of WORMHOUDT is the CO of—
then there is the particular SS unit—
MOHNKE, who gave an order to shoot the prisoners concerned.
That report was superseded in June 1947 by Report No. 1650. Again that report related exclusively to the Wormhoudt incident. I do not intend to quote the names of the people mentioned in this report, because some of the Germans who gave evidence are still alive. On page 8 it states:
MOHNKE gave the NCO of the second party of prisoners … the order to take them all to the Barn and eliminate them.
The next paragraph states
The evidence to show that MOHNKE gave the order to shoot the prisoners is well and clearly stated by"—
and two Germans are listed as giving statements.
On page 16 the report states:
His (MOHNKE's) words were, '… What do you mean, by bringing in prisoners contrary to orders'".
Those are the words of a German soldier.
The report further states:
we had orders from MOHNKE to shoot the prisoners.
The 60-odd pages of this report, relating to this one incident, finger one German SS officer. That officer did not even shoot any British Tommies, but that is not the point. In this case it is the officer who gave the orders. That is the line which I draw and the line which was drawn by the people who conducted many of the trials following the war.
These reports show that there was a prima facie case to answer. The matter was passed to the Judge Advocate General's office. Mohnke's name was added to CROWCASS—Central Registry of War Crimes and Security Suspects—and later the British Government lodged it with the United Nations War Crimes Commission, where it remains today listed as case 128/U K/G/28.
Many attempts have been made to have the truth told about this massacre. I do not claim any credit; I have just added a piece to the jigsaw puzzle. I do not know when Mohnke was first discovered.
Since raising this matter in the House, a London bus driver has contacted me and said that he had identified and located Mohnke in 1972 on behalf of his uncle, who was at Wormhoudt on that day but was not put in the barn. He was taken as a prisoner of war by a non-SS unit and was therefore treated properly.

Mr. William Powell: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) raises an important point. One of the most disturbing things about this former SS officer is that not only did he serve later in the war as the commander of the guard around Hitler's bunker, but that he has achieved—though untried—a degree of quasi respectability with historians. He has become a major source of information for international historians, who spend a great deal of their time recreating the events that occurred in Berlin in April 1945.

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) is quite right, but those are not matters that I wish to go into now. There are many questions to be raised about this former SS officer. What happened to him between 1945 and 1955 when he was in Russian hands'? What happened to him when he came back to the West—if I can use that term—and it was known that he had come back?
As I said, many attempts have been made to get to the truth of this massacre. There must be a degree of embarrassment in certain high places, both military and political, in this country. In fact, the deafening silence in certain quarters is testimony to this. Anyone who has read the stories in the papers during the past few weeks will have noted—by their absence—quotations from certain quarters that one would expect to have more than a passing interest in what happened to those British prisoners of war. Those are points that must be raised later when the Minister of Defence, hopefully, takes positive action.
There is no embarrassment whatsoever in this matter being raised for Reginald West, Charles Daley, Alfred Tombs, Albert Evans and Brian Fahey, who were all privates with the Royal Warwicks and the only known living survivors of the massacre. Of the 12 to 14 survivors, those alone remain. They cannot be precise about the number of survivors; no one will ever know exactly how many British Tommies were murdered and how many survived. All their identification tags were removed. A year after the bodies were buried, they were allegedly dug up and reburied elsewhere. No one knows whether all the bodies were removed. All identification was removed, contrary to the Geneva convention.
Nobody believed the story told by these men when they returned to England—the first in 1943—following repatriation, when they were swapped for Germans. They were not believed. How could they be? Seventy to 80 British Tommies were left at Wormhoudt with one or perhaps two officers, as reference has been found to another officer. There was perhaps one officer to protect the rear of those who had gone to Dunkirk. They never arrived. They never returned. No one knew what happened to them. There were no records. No one knew until 1943 when repatriation had taken place. No one even expected that there had been a massacre. There was no one to tell about it. Of course, officers and the press in Britain were stunned. Originally, no one believed these men when they told their story. In fact, one of my constituents did not return until late 1946 or early 1947.
To encourage the Ministry of Defence, I should add that there is no embarrassment among the relatives of those killed at Wormhoudt, or among the relatives of the survivors who are now dead. Sons, daughters and grandchildren have written to me in the past few weeks. supporting the desire to see justice, because it was known among the families and in the close circles of those men that something bad had happened, and nothing ever appeared to be done about it. Many who lost relatives al. the end of May 1940 and who received letters from the then Ministry of War or the various regiments to say that their loved ones were missing in action and presumed dead can never be really certain whether they were in that barn at Wormhoudt.
None of the relatives can understand—nor can many hon. Members—why the two reports from which I have quoted are closed, under the Official Secrets Act, until 2021—to be precise, until 1 January 2021. They are closed for 75 years after the end of the war. Why? Most of the British personnel who are mentioned En the reports are dead and not all the survivors were involved in giving depositions because they were not all known about at the time. At least two and perhaps three out of the four members of the interrogation unit are still alive, although Colonel Scotland, who headed the unit, is no longer alive.
Surely those reports cannot be closed for 75 years to protect Herr Mohnke, or the Germans who gave evidence against him, from embarrassment. I know that in the early 1970s when writers were seeking permission from the Ministry of Defence to look at some of the documents, they were told—I have seen the correspondence—"You must not attribute or refer to those Germans in a derogatory fashion because it may embarrass them or their relatives." Funnily enough, the two Germans who were referred to in one letter were both dead, and anybody who knew anything about the case history would have known that they had been dead for years. However, the Ministry of Defence laid down those rules to British inquirers, writers and academics, and said, "You must not embarrass the Germans. You must not give the source of your information. You must not say that you have been allowed access to reports 1500 and 1650." There is no earthly reason why those reports, or any others, should remain closed for 75 years.

Mr.TamDalyell: rose——

Mr. Rooker: Yes, I shall give way to my hon. Friend as I am about to conclude.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend will recollect that I supported him at Home Office Question Time on this important issue on which he has taken the lead. I asked about Ministry of Defence records. Someone, at some time, when making decisions about shredding, must have seen those documents.

Mr. Rooker: That is right. The fact that I have copies of both reports—not just extracts—shows that copies are in circulation and that they were not all at Kew or in the Ministry of Defence. Clearly, bona fide original copies are available, but not enough people have had sufficient pieces to put the jigsaw puzzle together. Not everyone knew that Mohnke was still alive. Those who knew the background were not certain. In the early 1970s the evidence was that he was either dead or still behind the iron curtain. I have seen that written up as late as 1972. Yet he was seen, as I


understand it, at a trade fair in the late 1950s—in 1958 or 1959. The Germans have cleared him twice—in 1974 and in 1976. I do not know whether the German authorities have ever asked the British whether they could look at our information. One reason why I want the Ministry of Defence to take the lead in this is that it is beholden to do so.
Together with my collaborator, Ian Sayer, who publishes "World War II Investigator" and who gave me Mohnke's address, I arranged for Reginald West, my constituent, to make his own private complaint to the Lubeck authorities recently so that they cannot say that none of the survivors has contacted them. As none of the survivors has ever been contacted by the German authorities, that cannot be used as an excuse. We gave the Germans the reference numbers of the two reports and the West German ambassador in London received a copy.
I have told the Ministry of Defence that I am going to be patient. I have been so far, and I intend to continue to be moderate and modest in my demands. However, I will keep the issue before the House in one way or another. Later in the week an early-day motion will be tabled, with support from hon. Members of all parties, including the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine).

Mr. Martin M.Brandon-Bravo: rose——

Mr. Rooker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way as I am about to make my final point.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo.: rose——

Mr. Rooker: I shall give way, but I have another point to make.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure that he knows that one has the impression that there has been great reluctance to open up or to look again at events which took place 40 years ago. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Home Secretary has set up a small commission to look into the wider issues of unresolved war crimes. Will the hon. Gentleman help us by submitting his evidence to the panel that the Home Secretary has set up?

Mr. Rooker: I am glad that I gave way. That has already been done, but the panel said that the matter has nothing to do with it. The operation that the Home Secretary has set up will not cover this case. I make no complaint about that. I am raising a wholly different issue. I do not seek to confuse matters, but the Home Secretary's operation will not affect and is nothing to do with this case. Contact has been made and the panel politely pointed out that its terms of reference did not cover this case. I make no complaint about that at this point; perhaps later the panel's terms of reference will change.
The youngest of the survivors is 68 and the oldest is 81. They are not getting any younger. Time is not on their side, and they understand that as well as everyone else. In the past few days it has been disclosed that one of this country's eminent lawyers has offered his services free to the survivors, and they have accepted because other avenues can be explored. If the Ministry of Defence says, "Ministers have looked at this and taken a decision; the

matter is to remain closed"—I sincerely hope that it does not—that decision must be challenged, and it can be challenged in places other than this House. However, that needs people with better and other professional expertise than I have.
I have sought to raise only a few of the points relating to this case. I do not wish to bore the House or to take up a lot of extra time in raising matters which I know could not be answered today. I gave notice to the Ministry of Defence last week that I would seek to keep the matter before the House and to keep up the pressure on Ministers and on those in the Ministry of Defence. They may not have been under pressure from certain quarters—that is a matter for criticism, and I will make that criticism at the appropriate time—but they will be kept under pressure from myself and from hon. Members of all parties until we get a satisfactory conclusion and justice for the survivors and the fallen.

Mr. John Carlisle: The House has listened with great respect to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who has taken the lead on the matter that he raised and has earned the appreciation of many Members for the investigation that he is making.
I hope that in the few minutes available to me I shall be listened to with equal respect, especially by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), on the matter that I wish to bring before my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House before the House rises for the spring Adjournment. It is a matter that I tried to raise on the Adjournment some time ago but neither the Home Office nor the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would take any responsibility for it. It is the continuing picket outside the South African embassy.
With the tourist season and the summer approaching, I believe that the House should hear about the terrible scourge of that picket, or demonstration, on Trafalgar square; about the shame that it is bringing to London and to this country by the fact that it is allowed to continue virtually unabated; about the fact that Her Majesty's Government have seen fit not to take any notice of the picket; and about the fact that the police have had great difficulty in the various prosecutions that they have brought in trying to bring some sense of law and order into events outside the embassy.
It is a disgrace that a bunch of Left-wing political extremists, paid, of course, by Camden council, the World Council of Churches and other organisations to attend, should be present on a 24-hour basis outside an embassy in this country. The demonstration bears no comparison with the understandable vigils and other demonstrations that have taken place outside embassies throughout London in the past. For example, candlelight vigils have taken place outside the Russian embassy and many hon. Members on both sides of the House have participated in them. Quiet and peaceful demonstrations and protests have taken place outside the embassies of South American countries and of many other countries. The demonstration outside the South African embassy has nothing to do with peaceful protest. It is a continuing scourge and the House should understand that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends are becoming cross at the apparent inactivity of the authorities to do something about it.
No other demonstrations are taking place in the capital outside the embassies of countries that equally, if I might use that term, violate human rights. I have always said that I consider apartheid to be a violation of human rights. There are no demonstrations outside any of the black African embassies, for example, which represent countries where some human rights violations are far worse than in South Africa. There are no demonstrations outside the embassies of iron curtain countries. There are no demonstrations outside the Indian embassy or the high commission because of what has been going on in that country. The House should understand that the continuing demonstration outside the South African embassy is becoming rather more than a nuisance.
The demonstration is mounted by an unashamed political body through the anti-apartheid movement, which receives funds from eastern European countries and some British sources. Those who take part in the demonstration might well demonstrate in support of an animal welfare rights campaign along Whitehall, or in a campaign to protest against the recent parliamentary activity of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).
The same people turn up day in and day out, year in and year out, for any sort of protest, and they always exaggerate their numbers. They are known, quite rightly, as rent a mob. They are especially violent and spiteful in the demonstration that they are mounting against the South African Government outside the embassy. I have personally experienced violence on the campuses of universities and polytechnics, which has rightly been condemned by Members on both sides of the House, and the fact that this violent element exists in our capital is a disgrace to us all. The demonstrators are supported by the so-called respectable arm of the African National Congress through its offices in London.
The non-stop picket has taken place in many and various ways——

Mr. Eric Forth: I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought the matter before the House; it has received scant attention until now. Will he deal with the apparent unwillingness of the Metropolitan police or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to pursue the legitimate complaints that have been made, partly by members of the public who have suffered at the hands of these people, and partly by police officers who have been injured by them?

Mr. Carlisle: If my hon. Friend remains patient for a few moments, I think he will find that I shall cover the issue that he has raised. It is one that concerns many throughout Britain.
The activities of the group of demonstrators outside the South African embassy include a continuous presence. There is an unashamed 24-hour protest outside the embassy on the pavement, which is about 20 ft. wide. This tends to spill over towards the embassy and thus causes great inconvenience to passing visitors. The group's activities include the daily use of a megaphone, the loudness of which varies. What do not vary are the slogans that are shouted through the megaphone at the embassy, at passing visitors, at the police and at anyone who is in the vicinity at the time. Typical slogans are, "Ambassador Killen is a Fascist killer" and "Racist murderers, out of

Britain." Those who shout the slogans accuse the police of sexism and racism. The slogans are directed at any visitor in the area or those entering or leaving the embassy.
Every Thursday afternoon or evening there is the playing of a brass band, by what might be called a motley crew of musicians. They set up shop outside the embassy and play all types of music, again to the nuisance of those working within the embassy and to those outside.
Street collections have been mounted on many occasions, and these are illegal if they are not supported by the proper licences. Encouragement has been given to various groups, such as the British Communist party and the Labour lesbian group. Who knows, there may be some members of that group on the Opposition Benches. British Labour Members have stood outside the embassy, and in many instances they have deliberately caused themselves to be arrested in the demonstration. On occasion the demonstrators have set up on the pavement outside the embassy a stall at which they have sold T-shirts, pamphlets, stickers and posters. There has been a continuous attempt to coerce members of the public into signing petitions.
Worst of all has been the abuse, both verbal and physical, that has been directed at those legitimately walking in the area. This has been virtually unnoticed by the House. Whoever walks by the embassy these days is accosted by one of the demonstrators. This may he done by young men or young women, if they can he so described.

Mr. Frank Cook: That is not true.

Mr. Carlisle: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Perhaps he has not walked by the embassy recently. Perhaps he does not realise the extent of the picket. On many occasions it spreads across the pavement. which means that pedestrians cannot walk by without being accosted or physically jostled by the demonstrators.

Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman may be pleased to learn, if he is in one of his rare listening moods, that I walk past the embassy regularly and am never accosted by the demonstrators. I walk past without let or hindrance. The House will note that the Metropolitan police maintain a presence and that their officers rarely have to take a hand.

Mr. Carlisle: I do not have time to list the various offences that have been committed. Probably the hon. Gentleman is recognised by those who maintain the picket, who know him to be sympathetic to their cause. The general public are accosted regularly and the embassy officials are jostled, spat at and abused as they enter or leave the embassy, whatever the colour of their skin. This abuse is a continual nuisance to the public, and especially to those who are working in the embassy.
I suppose the most famous offence in recent times was the one that took place in May 1987, when three canisters of red paint were thrown at the embassy. Perhaps some Labour Members would argue that that was a form of peaceful protest. However, arrests were made on that occasion. When police barriers have been erected, they have been moved. After the red paint incident, the mob was moved to the pavement of Duncannon street, which runs along one side of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, and for about five weeks it carried out its protest there. The House, including my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary


should ask why the Metropolitan police allowed the mob to return to a place outside the embassy after it had committed an offence against the embassy.
The police have been involved in violent scuffles outside the embassy on many occasions. In one such incident a policeman was injured by the demonstrators. If the demonstration was peaceful and non-violent, did not harass those working in the embassy and those walking by it, and was a genuine protest—I understand the feeling of some Opposition Members and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends about that which the demonstrators are protesting against—we would have no cause for concern. Unfortunately, that is not the position, and Opposition Members delude themselves if they think otherwise.
I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) that I would discuss the prosecutions that have taken place. This goes back to the incident outside the South African embassy in Kensington in 1984, when some violence took place. Although various arrests were made, no one was ultimately brought to trial, sometimes for technical reasons and, one hopes, sometimes because there was no case to answer. If that is the way the law is, so be it. However, there is no doubt that because of that "success" the police have been extremely reluctant to bring prosecutions against people who are violating the law in no uncertain terms.
In April 1986 there was a discussion between the police, the Foreign Office, the embassy and members of the diplomatic corps. It was promised then that every effort would be made to alleviate the problem. Since then nothing has been done to alleviate the problem. Some prosecutions have been brought, but most of them have failed, and virtually no prison sentences or punishments have been given, although there have been one or two. [HON. MEMBERS "Shame!"] The shame is that these people can flout the law, week in and week out, without attracting the attention of the authorities or the police.
Two questions must be asked about this sorry affair, and I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to take the first of them to the Foreign Secretary. Are the Government fulfilling their obligations under the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964, under which a responsibility is placed on the receiving state to protect the peace and dignity of a diplomatic mission as well as the persons and possessions relating to such a mission? Under the Vienna convention we are ignoring our responsibilities by allowing this demonstration to continue in its present form.
The second question is whether the Government are wholly satisfied that the police have to rely on local byelaws to arrest those who offend, and that cases can be brought only against individuals, not against groups. Will my right hon. Friend ask our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider bringing in legislation to prevent this sort of thing happening to embassies?
Finally, I bring a related issue to the attention of the House. On 11 June the BBC is making a 10-hour broadcast of a concert from Wembley which is organised by the anti-apartheid movement to celebrate Nelson Mandela's 70th birthday. Mandela is a terrorist who was committed to gaol in South Africa 26 years ago. He can walk out of gaol any time he wants to, provided that he renounces violence against the state.
Why is this concert going ahead and being sponsored by the BBC? Where will the, presumably considerable, fees come from? I suggest that it is outside the BBC's charter that such an unashamedly political organisation should obtain 10 hours of time and receive the considerable sums of money from the public purse and the licence payers that the concert will generate. I hope that before 11 June the Home Secretary will scrutinise this matter and ask the BBC those questions. It is a disgrace to the House and the country that we consistently support terrorist organisations with our money and time.

Mr. David Winnick: What has been disgraceful is not the daily demonstration outside the South African embassy but the manner in which the apartheid regime is defended and justified at every opportunity by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). He has made a number of trips to South Africa at the expense of the South African authorities and has never sought to deny that. During the time he has been in the House he has continually used it as a platform from which to put across the point of view of the South African authorities.
The Opposition have made their position clear on numerous occasions. We are against the system in South Africa. It is an outrageous tyranny that discriminates against the majority of the people there because of the colour of their skin. We have been told by the Government that they accept our point of view; the argument is what should be done about it. Time and again, Ministers have said that they agree with our interpretation of events in South Africa—not with that of the hon. Member for Luton, North.
We want sanctions against the South African regime. However much my views may differ from those of some of the people involved in the demonstration, I am pleased that Londoners and all who come here are constantly reminded that there are people in this country who are very much opposed to the tyranny of the South African regime, just as we opposed the Nazi tyranny in Germany before the war.
I come now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). It is difficult to understand how the Government can be indifferent to the fate of the British and Canadian soldiers who were massacred nearly 48 years ago. If the person responsible is living in Germany under a respectable guise, as the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) said that he was—and I understand that he is a fairly successful business man—I find it difficult to understand how the Government can be indifferent to what happened. After all, the allied Governments in the war—including the British Government—made their position perfectly clear: they said that all those responsible for Nazi crimes against humanity would be brought to justice when the war ended. Surely we should be concerned about the massacre of British soldiers at the hands of this Nazi fanatic, and should bring every sort of pressure to bear on the German authorities to ensure he is brought to justice.
My main point in this debate concerns the partial compensation that will be paid to people who have lost more than £2·50 in housing benefit. We have been informed that a special unit of the DHSS has been set up to deal with applications from such people—pensioners


and others—who are now forced to pay £15, £20 or more weekly in rent and rates out of a limited income. Some of those affected are my constituents. These substantial additional payments of rent and rates are expected from those who have had their housing benefit withdrawn or much reduced, and many of the pensioners who have been thus adversely affected are finding it almost impossible to come up with the extra money now required.
An 84-year-old constituent came to my surgery to tell me that she had been asked to pay £18 a week more out of a very limited income. As a result of pressure from Opposition Members and the public, the Government partly climbed down. The Secretary of State for Social Services announced the transitional arrangements, but how long will they last—for one year, or more? I see no reason why the first £2·50 should not be compensated; but it appears now that there will be no compensation for rent and rate increases in the current year, either.
A good deal of red tape seems to be involved in applying for the compensation. It will not be paid automatically. Applicants will have to fill in a form which has to go to the special DHSS unit in Glasgow. Local authorities will have to be consulted about how much housing benefit the applicant was paid before the cuts and how much is being paid now. All that will take time.
The special unit will not be established until the beginning of July, so during the eight weeks or more people on a limited income will pay substantial increases in rent and rates. That is wrong. I hope that tonight the Leader of the House will give us more information about the transitional arrangements. The Secretary of State should be here to make a statement.
My second point concerns the Home Secretary's decision on concessionary television licences as announced in a written answer on 18 May. It could be argued that I have an interest, not because I am a pensioner—I have quite a few years to go yet—but because I introduced a private Member's Bill on this subject. I was fortunate in winning first place in the ballot and on 16 January 1987 my Bill, which would have provided a concessionary television licence fee for all pensioners, was defeated by 21 votes. That was a shameful result arising from the Government's decision to oppose my measure.
A week later in the High Court it was ruled that local authorities could provide concessionary television licences for pensioners where there was some common facility. Several local authorities, including mine, submitted applications, some of which were successful so that pensioners would receive a concessionary television licence where there was, for instance, the Piper warning system. The Home Secretary has now reversed that. Not only has the 5p fee increased to £5, but it will be necessary for the accommodation to be warden-controlled. Pensioners on a limited income were hoping to get a concessionary licence—we should bear in mind how important television is for elderly people, especially in the winter months—but their hopes have been dashed.
It is difficult to understand how in the Budget the Government can provide the richest in the community with hundreds of pounds a week extra—those people certainly do not need that cash—while many of our retired constituents living on the smallest income are denied a concessionary television licence. As I say, the Government have made it far more difficult for them.
If the licence fee were £5 for all pensioners I would have no complaint, but that is not the case. Far from it. I hope

that today we shall be given information on housing benefit and concessionary television licences for pensioners, and that there will be a debate on the latter.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I wish to address my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the difficult subject of the relationship between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the world which watches and listens to it.
We are enjoying a good, sound boom in economic growth and nowhere is that more clearly visible or wanted than in overseas exports. I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your travels around the world have enjoyed the excellent performance of the BBC world service. It is rewarding to hear of students in parts of China listening to the BBC world service and gaining an understanding of this country. But we must recognise the strength of the BBC and how it is often thought to reflect British policies and even how this House views the countries at which programmes are directed. I can find little fault with the BBC world service, but recently the penchant of the BBC in its current affairs programmes has been for trial by television, and one or two examples of that have been discussed in this House. When the BBC gets it wrong, the BBC gets it excruciatingly wrong.
I have not visited south-east Asia for many years, but I was talking to some leading business men who have high hopes of exporting there capital goods on a large scale, providing employment for thousands of British people. They drew my attention to the extraordinary impact of "Newsnight" on 4 May which was about the new Prime Minister of Malaysia. Apparently it was constructed from a 45-minute interview with the Prime Minister which was whittled down to two minutes of him on screen and 18 minutes principally devoted to the views of his political opponents.
The BBC and the press have every right to say whatever they want, but the impact of such a programme should be borne in mind, especially considering the hard time that British exporters have had in building up their exports over the past seven years. Four years ago there was an active "buy British last" policy in Malaysia and other parts of south-east Asia. It not only affected the export of capital goods, but Concorde was denied rights to fly down the corridor to reach Singapore. The BBC is recognised as an important and valuable national institution, so when a programme is biased against a foreigner it is regarded as a direct criticism by this House and our Government of a particular foreign power and its leader.
I shall not dwell on whether a foreign power or its leader is correctly portrayed. I am concerned that British exporters, having spent four years gradually beating back the "buy British last" policy, and being on the verge of substantial orders, could be undermined by such an unfortunate programme. I have illustrated a specific case, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will review the general case and perhaps discuss with the governors of the BBC the impact of that type of programme and the effect of misreporting on the fortunes of and relationships between two countries such as Malaysia and the United Kingdom.
I have no interest to declare. I raise this matter because I am worried about the delicate nature of such a relationship, and how the BBC is regarded around the


world. I am rarely a critic of the corporation which in general is excellent, but perhaps my right hon. Friend would be kind enough to review the position and reassure the Malaysians and others interested in trading with us that we base Government policy not on media opinions, but on good relations developed between this Government and those overseas.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I wish to contribute briefly to the debate on an issue of great importance to my constituency—an issue that arouses the interest and concern of every hon. Member when it is relevant to his constituency or area. The Leader of the House had experience of this matter this time last year, as he told me in response to a recent business question.
The issue that concerns me is that of Nirex and its consultative arrangements in respect of its document, "The Way Forward", which seeks to find a solution to the thorny, vexed and long-running problem of the disposal of nuclear waste. It is significant that the consultative period will end during our parliamentary recess. Therefore, I bring to the attention of the Leader of the House and of hon. Members the considerable legitimate worries about Nirex's method of consultation and the options in its report. I wish to draw the House's attention to the feelings of people in my constituency which has been listed as being of potential geological suitability for possible further evaluation with a view to long-term nuclear waste disposal.
The consultative document considers three concepts for dealing with the problem. The first is disposal under land, the second is disposal under the seabed with access from the coast, and the third is disposal under the seabed with access at sea. There are several reasons for refuting each of those concepts as a possible way forward, but I shall confine myself to one.
Each of those methods would involve the long-term locking away of nuclear material in an unreclaimable form. It is nonsense, when scientific knowledge at this juncture is not sufficient to offer a full solution to the problem, to lock ourselves away from a possible future solution if scientific knowledge can deliver it. That is the fundamental criticism inherent in each of those possible categories of disposal.
Nirex is not consulting about one form of interim disposal—on-site storage at surface level at existing nuclear installations. There is considerable evidence of public support, if I may call it that, for that approach rather than for the three methods upon which Nirex is currently consulting. Its consultation process is flawed because it has not chosen to evaluate and test public reaction to the perfectly feasible and scientifically sustainable method of storing nuclear waste materials on site at existing nuclear installations.
I hope that the Leader of the House will draw the concern of many hon. Members to the Secretary of State for the Environment who, ultimately, will have to consider whatever recommendations Nirex may make. I hope that the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Scotland will bear in mind that Nirex did not consult upon that evident way of proceeding.

Mr. Michael Brown: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree that, as we are only days from the end of the consultation period, it is crucial that every hon. Member should express his view on the consultation document—I suspect that many hon. Members share his view—by the end of the consultation period so that Nirex is in no doubt about our views?

Mr. Kennedy: I am aware of the prominent and consistent view taken by the hon. Gentleman in respect of his constituency during the last Parliament and I know that he will have made clear his thoughts to Nirex. I echo his plea that the more hon. Members make known their views to Nirex, the greater will be the input that Nirex receives.
I wish to refer to the distinctive form of public consultation which has been carried out at Easter Ross in my constituency. Nirex has not been particularly forthcoming about the geographic knowledge that it is willing to pass on to those concerned about possible disposal sites. However, within those constraints, a mini-referendum was recently held within Easter Ross, supervised by the Electoral Reform Society. The ballot motion stated:
A company called UK Nirex has found several areas of Britain in which it may be possible to bury low and intermediate levels of nuclear waste below ground level. Part of Easter Ross is one of these areas. NIREX intend carrying out more tests in order to choose an area in which they can site an underground waste repository. Are you in favour of these tests being carried out in Easter Ross?
That motion was approved by the Electoral Reform Society, and I hope that the House will agree that it was not a loaded question. It is a straightforward, unbiased account of the proposition currently being considered. Of all the valid returned papers, 96·36 per cent. came out against such tests in Easter Ross; 142 people voted in favour of the proposition that further tests could be carried out and 3,761 voted against it. In all, 5,130 papers were distributed and 3,915 were returned, of which 12 were blank or spoilt. The response to the ballot, including blank and spoilt papers, was 76·31 per cent. As a result of that straightforward and unloaded public opinion survey, which required people to mark the ballot paper and then go to the bother of returning it by post, there was a definitive answer that, in common with many other parts of the country, my area categorically said no to Nirex. I hope that Nirex will take that into account.
Nirex has not given a very warm welcome to the result of that ballot. I regret the criticism that it has levelled at the ballot because it was invited to participate, with myself and other members of the local community, in a series of four public meetings in which the arguments for and against were thoroughly aired and the technical matters involved were constructively explained. Nirex chose not to participate in that exercise, which, again, does not reflect much interest on its part in a genuine consultative process.
The way in which Nirex has approached this matter is shot through with flaws and we reject its approach. I also speak for others in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland where there is considerable anxiety about this matter. We share a common view that on-site disposal or storage is more preferable than the options being canvassed by Nirex. We believe that there should have been consultation on the option of on-site disposal or storage.
I hope that before the consultative period ends hon. Members will make known their views to Nirex, and that,


in due course, both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for the Environment will evaluate carefully what will no doubt he strong opposition from many parts of the country. It is all too easy on this issue to say, "Not in my back yard," as the referendum in my constituency showed. Surely it is more constructive for the future to say of those three methods of disposal, "Not in anyone's back yard," because it is not a responsible way to deal with the problem. We should choose on-site disposal rather than any of the three methods in the consultative document.

Mr. William Powell: The charm of these debates lies in the wide variety of issues that are canvassed. I have listened with considerable interest to many of the contributions this evening, not least to that of the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy). I want to return to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) about an hour ago and deal with the procedures of the House.
The Order Paper is filled with motions on procedure, but matters of procedure do not receive the attention that they deserve. Many misconceptions and misunderstandings follow, particularly outside the House, because people have an inadequate grasp of the reasons for the procedures and the fact—which is vital—that our procedures are impartial and work for the benefit of the whole House, not for any particular hon. Member. In that connection I want to refer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale did, to the Abortion (Amendment) Bill.
I declare with out any hesitation that I am an unashamed supporter of the Bill presented by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). I recognise that many people disagree strongly with my views on this subject. If I had my way—and I know that I shall not—we would rely on the old common law relating to abortion and the Abortion Act 1967 would never have reached the statute book. I recognise that many people disagree very strongly with that view.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to draw attention to the fact that I have just entered the Chamber after having a cup of tea in the Tea Room where I saw that my name was on the annunciator screen. I want to bring that to your attention, so that I shall not be recorded as having spoken today and therefore lose my chance to be called later today or tonight.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I note that the hon. Gentleman is very anxious to be called later this week. I hope that he will be.

Mr. William Powell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell). In trying to find my way around this place I have from time to time found that there are opportunist advantages in my path in being able to follow the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps from time to time he feels that there is some advantage the other way. Both he and I shared some of the correspondence to the former right hon. Member for South Down. Such are the ways of the House.
Controversial legislation such as reform of the abortion law is quite unsuitable for private Members' legislation. Private Members' legislation procedures, if properly

followed, cannot possibly be used to bring about such a controversial change. If only those outside had been properly cautioned not to expect too much of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill when it was before the House, a great deal of disappointment might have been avoided.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will confirm that only one substantially opposed private Member's Bill has become law without Government intervention since 1958. I was not a Member of the House then. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is nodding in agreement, and he has been a Member for most of the time since 1958. I have not.
In the 1960s the Wilson Government allowed private Members' legislation procedures to be altered to allow sufficient Government time for measures of considerable public controversy to be carried. Although I was not a Member of the House then, I deplore Governments making such time available. Although I am a strong supporter of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, I strongly support the view taken by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that Government time should not be made available for this measure, because if it were it would be changing the goalposts in the middle of the game. Time is of the essence in carrying all private Members' legislation. I am fully aware of that. I was fortunate enough to be almost at the top of the ballot for private Members' Bills and I was able to carry through private Members' legislation. I am all too well aware of the loops, difficulties and potential pitfalls in those procedures. However, we must respect the fact that there is only so much time.
The tactics of those who oppose or delay private Members' Bills are governed by the fact that there is only so much time. When people claimed that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill failed the other week simply because another hour and a half or whatever was not made available, they could not be more wrong. If another hour and a half, five hours or 10 hours had been made available and that extra time had been announced in advance, the tactics of the Bill's opponents—people have every right to oppose the Bill and I deprecate all comments from some supporters of the hon. Member for Mossley Hill that the procedures of the House have been abused in some way—would have been different, but I have no doubt that the result would have been the same.
Private Members' Bills are a valuable way of handling certain matters that need to be in the public domain, but they are utterly unsuitable for dealing with matters of major public controversy such as the reform of abortion law. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale was right to say that the issue would not go away, I hope that all hon. Members will bear in mind that if they seek to follow the path taken by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, and others in previous Sessions, the result will be the same. Public opinion should be aware, before the procedures are started, that that is the almost inevitable consequence of introducing such a measure. The public should not be encouraged to imagine that because a Bill has received a Second Reading, or has a measure of support, those who have every legitimate right to oppose measures in the House are in some way abusing the procedures.
The abortion conundrum must be resolved, but the solution does not lie in introducing a private Member's Bill. The Government should grasp the nettle. Fortunately, they will have that opportunity. I understand that in the next Session of Parliament the Government are


likely to present a Bill to deal with many of the matters raised in the Warnock report. Such a Bill will deal with many matters of conscience and it is likely that on the Conservative Benches at least there will be a free vote. That is the advice that I have received.
There can be no more sensible way of resolving the abortion problem than for a clause to be inserted in a Government Bill such as the one to which I have referred—if one appears—to amend the Abortion Act 1967. The House would be able to consider that in Government time, with all the differences in procedure which that necessarily involves. No doubt a free vote would be allowed. In that way the House could quite properly deal with a matter that must be dealt with. The House and the public could be spared the unnecessary difficulties that have arisen as a result of absurd expectations about what private Members' legislation can achieve.
I stress that the procedures of the House should be respected by all hon. Members. They are available for use by all Members, and it is wrong to say that they are abused merely because they are used.
I understand that on Report a new clause is to be proposed to the Criminal Justice Bill. It may that the clause will be in order, in that it will lie within the long title of the legislation to which it is to be added, but I hope that when the new clauses and amendments are selected for debate those who are responsible for that selection will be extremely cautious about selecting it, because it amounts to nothing less than tacking.
Tacking was a tremendous game that was played in the early 18th century. There is nothing that more encourages the natural sense of mischief that lies within most of us than the opportunity to tack on to legislation. That happens in the United States Congress, with the utmost mischief and the greatest of joy. Years ago I used to study with considerable interest the career of a notable member of the United States Senate, the former Republican leader Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen. He was a master of parliamentary tactics and he used to tack mercilessly on to every Bill that he could. Much of what he tacked on was thoroughly mischievous.
If we allow tacking to take place here, we will find that it will become an ever-growing industry. It was rightly stopped in the 18th century, and it would be foolish and unwise if it were reintroduced. I hope that that will be borne in mind and that a proper selection of amendments and new clauses will be made. There might be other reasons why the proposed new clause should be selected, but it would be a most undesirable precedent. I say that as someone who supports the efforts that have been made by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill. The supporters of change to the abortion law must not try to misuse the procedures of this House and then accuse those who seek to oppose them of being the misusers. That has been going on, and it is undesirable and must stop.
The relationship between Standing Committees and Select Committees is another matter that requires a great deal of thought in the months and years to come. Departmental Select Committees are a welcome and, I hope, permanent feature of the work of the House. They have been running for nearly 10 years. There is a degree of

criticism of the work that they do, but that criticism should not be allowed to undermine the part that they can play in the proceedings of the House.
The time has come for the House to give careful consideration to the work that is done by Select Committees. The House should consider whether some of the work that is done by certain Standing Committees should be referred to Select Committees for proper consideration. Obviously controversial major legislation must be dealt with by Standing Committees. That procedure, although it is open to criticism. is by far the best way to handle major legislation in detail.
From time to time all hon. Members receive invitations to attend Standing Committees on statutory instruments. I have served on a number of such Standing Committees, and I must say that in nearly every case they have been a waste of time. Most of the hon. Members who serve on such Committees have no conceivable interest in the subject. Sometimes the work has been completed within minutes, and on one or two occasions I recall it being completed in less than one minute.
Surely some of the delegated legislation that is dealt with by Standing Committees could be referred to the Select Committees. They have a greater expertise in such matters and they could consider whether it would be appropriate for the House to take a greater interest in the legislation, instead of it being considered by a Standing Committee.
It seems to have become regarded as necessary for every departmental Select Committee to make at least one trip abroad every year. It would be something of a surprise if people were aware of some of the matters on which Select Committees spend so much of their time. I note that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is in his place, and he is—he may not have sought the role—one of the most knowledgeable people on the subject of local government. The Select Committee on the Environment has been in existence for about 10 years, but I understand that it has never considered the subject of local government. In the past 10 years, however, every Session of Parliament has devoted an enormous part of its time to local government. Perhaps it is something to do with the fact that local government does not involve travel abroad and is of less interest to members of that Committee than it is to the House and the public.
It comes as a surprise to discover some of the matters that the Select Committee on Transport has considered. Such consideration has enabled that Committee—in the course of its duties, of course—to go abroad on fact-finding missions. I have no doubt that the Committee Members have derived considerable benefit and experience from such trips.
I believe that some of the statutory instruments relating to transport, local government and the environment, which are of no interest to most Members of the House but which are a necessary part of our legislative activity, could be referred to the Select Committees for proper consideration. We should pay particular regard to the fact that statutory instruments are not amendable. If they are laid before Select Committees in draft form for consultation with the Government before they come to the House for consideration, that is likely to lead to better parliamentary scrutiny than currently takes place.
I expect that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will say that all these matters are for the Procedure Committee. He may even be kind enough to refer to the fact that he has tabled a motion that has my name to it.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate can last for only three hours—it used to be open-ended but the Establishment cut it down—and there is a convention that hon. Members should try to keep their speeches to a reasonable length, bearing in mind the amount of time available. The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) appears to be filibustering for no useful purpose, and that seems to be an abuse of the procedures that he is discussing.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have heard nothing out of order from the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). Perhaps this is a suitable moment to remind the House that there are a number of hon. Members who still hope to get in and this debate must end at 7.52 pm.

Mr. Powell: I was in the process of drawing my remarks to a close and I apologise to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) if he feels a degree of impatience. He is able to contribute frequently to the proceedings of this House, and I have raised a matter which I do not believe has been canvassed before on the Floor of the House. It is a matter that needs more careful scrutiny than it has received so far. When my right hon. Friend replies to the debate I hope that he will say that the Procedure Committee will be established soon. It will then be able to get to work on all sorts of matters of procedural reform that are important to the House.

Mr. Graham Allen: I want to bring to the attention of the House a matter that is of urgent importance to my constituents—the cuts that will be imposed this year on the Health Service in Nottingham. They are causing great concern and distress to my constituents, to the trade unions and to the organisations representing workers in the Health Service.
I have had representations from Nottingham BMA representing the doctors and consultants, from the Royal College of Nursing, NUPE and COHSE representing the nurses, from the General Municipal Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, NUPE, COHSE and other unions representing the ancillaries. If they were free to speak, no doubt I would have received representations from the senior management of the district health authority.
Yesterday, we saw the collapse of the lottery designed to assist the National Health Service. Even if it had not collapsed, the amount of money that it could have contributed would have been minimal, given the needs even of Nottingham's health service, let alone the National Health Service.
Before making any critical remarks, I wish to pay tribute to the staff, the nurses, the ancillaries and all those involved in making the Nottingham district health authority work, papering over the cracks and holding the Nottingham health service together with sticking plaster, working day and night beyond the call of duty. They deserve a tribute from everyone who uses the Health Service. I must, first and foremost, say that to them.
Yesterday, Princess Margaret came to Nottingham to declare open a scanner. As well as the sights that royalty are normally shown, I hope that Princess Margaret was

given an insight into the cuts that will be taking place this year in Nottingham district health authority. At every possible opportunity, local Conservatives paint a rosy picture which belies the reality of the health service in Nottingham.
A document produced by the Nottingham health authority, the Nottingham district and medical staff committee's report on the financial situation and its impact on clinical services, outlines how poorly the health service in Nottingham will fare during the next year. It estimates that in the current financial year pay awards in Nottingham's hospital units will be under-funded by approximately £439,000. The report states:
This factor exacerbates all other problems.
For as long as it is Government policy not to fund all pay awards in full, it will be essential that local financial planning must reduce pressures within the health authority and that will always mean a reduction in services., a reduction in ancillary services, and, now, a reduction in clinical services in the health authority. The district health authority will have to set aside three quarters or 1 per cent. for possible pay award shortfalls in the coming year.
That will cause a number of problems for the Nottingham district health authority and for people in Nottingham who wish to use the health service. In previous years a temporary ward has been funded at the City hospital to cope with the increased intake of medical patients during the months of January and February. This year medical patients will spill over into beds for other specialties, thus reducing their throughput. Therefore, a ward will not be provided this winter through lack of finance. Clearly it is unsatisfactory to leave it to chance that that money will be available should the need for additional beds become obvious. Therefore, it needs to be prioritised. If it is not prioritised through cuts in other areas, there will be no winter ward in the City hospital in Nottingham.
The traditional buffer for overflow of medical patients has been general surgery. However, the scope for that has been reduced following the cut in general surgical beds at the University hospital in Nottingham. It is accepted that additional difficulties are created by trying to accommodate an overflow of medical patients. I propose to consider other areas in which cuts will be affecting the Nottingham district health authority and the service to patients which in many cases will mean a diminished service which I hope will not produce dramatic cases such as that of Matthew Collier. I hope that the Government will have a change of mind and a change of heart and will properly fund the Health Service.
Medical equipment clearly becomes obsolete very quickly. The report states:
As a result it needs to be replaced regularly … At the two major Units the cost of planned replacement would be in excess of £1 million for this year. Approximately one quarter of this can be funded.
In other words, three quarters cannot be funded. The report goes on to say that £300,000 is required for pathology equipment, £45,000 for endoscopic equipment and £300,000 for X-ray equipment replacement. Those figures cast great shadows on the Government's policy towards the Health Service. The people of Nottingham will suffer for those failures.
The report continues:


As a short-term measure the Authority will be recommended to allow Units to retain a larger proportion of their Cost Improvement Savings in 1988–89 to invest in equipment.
However, it suggests that
the sensible way forward is to establish a planned replacement and renewal programme rather than the current arrangement of bidding against a limited (and normally inadequate) non-recurrent allocation.
These people are not manning a picket line and demanding the scalp of the Government; they manage the health service in Nottingham. They are at the end of their tether; they cannot make ends meet.
The report, referring to operating theatres, states:
At the two large Units"—
the City hospital and the University hospital in Nottingham—
during the summer a total of 175 operating lists had to be cancelled because of the shortage of nursing staff due to holidays. The smaller Units have difficulty in maintaining general anaesthetic lists, because of the lack of ODAs, and it has also not been possible to transfer sessions from Central Notts in order to make an impact on the very long Oral Surgical waiting lists.
Many health authorities have difficulties in maintaining their levels of nursing staff. At the University hospital, where the nursing budget allows only for under-recruitment, the report says that improved recruitment has led to overspend, so that the unit has to return to planned under-staffing. The largest hospital in Nottingham is deliberately under-staffing itself so that it can break even on the targets that have been set by higher authorities. The result is pain and anguish for people in Nottingham who are on the waiting lists, particularly those waiting for hip and joint replacements. A job description for a consultant orthopaedic surgeon has been prepared and agreed.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Allen: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has had more than enough opportunities in other forums to make his points.
The possible revenue consequence of such an appointment at the City hospital unit is a sum of about £200,000. The report states:
This funding is not available and the appointment is to be delayed with consequent effects upon the ever-increasing waiting lists for this type of operation.
Throughout the report there are clear signs that the health service in Nottingham is falling under greater stress despite the heroic efforts of the people who work in it.
The major constraint at the general hospital is the overspending pharmacy budget because of the escalating costs of cytotoxic chemotherapy which at the moment is not being met by Trent regional health authority.
In the neurosciences there are problems with pathology and nursing. The budget for neuropathology at University hospital is approximately half that provided in equivalent sub-regional centres. The enormous increase in the neuropathology work load has produced an overspending and, as a result, there will be a reduced diagnostic service with all that that implies for therapy and potential litigation. On nursing under neurosciences, dependency studies show that insufficient nurses are available to cope with the work load.
The report highlights the fact that the Nottingham area is faced with increased and uncontrollable work loads at

the same time as having imposed upon it cost improvement saving targets. The report clearly and strongly says:
Existing clinical services will almost certainly have to be reduced in order to demonstrate the savings, as there must come a time when no further savings can be made in non-patient services.
The report goes on—this may be of interest to the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell)—to say:
We are concerned that this is not acknowledged and the public are assured by bland statements in the local press that clinical services will not be affected.
The health service in Nottingham is under tremendous pressure. The Government are doing insufficient to maintain the current services. Services are being reduced and the end result will be more people on the waiting list, more people whose operations are cancelled and more people in desperate need and in desperate pain.
I ask the Leader of the House to take those views away with him. In my view, and I hope in the view of my constituents, the House should not adjourn until something has been done about this situation.

Mr. Richard Holt: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) rightly referred, in a point of order a moment ago, to a convention regarding debates such as this. Another convention is that hon. Members are supposed to raise matters that need to be discussed before we adjourn for the recess.
To me and to many of my constituents, going home is a pain. It is a pain because the Department of Transport has never been able to get its act together. Anyone who wants to travel to the north-east of England up the A1 will come up against no fewer than six lots of road works, repairs not to minor potholes, but to major sections of the road.
You can imagine my joy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when, on Tuesday or Wednesday this week, I heard on the radio that those thinking of travelling in Yorkshire would find a two-mile traffic jam on the Doncaster bypass, a four-mile traffic jam at Catterick and a six-mile traffic jam at Dishforth. Those who are not too familiar with the English countryside or the glories of the north may think that those places are a long way apart, but they come within a radius of 40 miles. Imagine setting out on such a journey. Imagine a British exporter trying to get his goods to the Channel ports when his lorry driver is faced with that.
Almost everybody acknowledges that it is time for a new motorway to be built on the eastern side of Britain, linking the Channel ports, London and Scotland. We have such a road on the western side of Britain. Why should we on the eastern side be denied such a facility?
Every time I communicate with the Department of Transport, I am told that the evidence does not justify the major expenditure that such a road would require. But who is preparing that evidence? Who is compiling the statistics? Who is advising on the conclusions to be drawn? It is the people who gave us the M25—the same technical experts, the same transport boffins.
The Department of Transport is not ignoring the problems of the A 1; it is making them worse by working almost simultaneously on every junction and stretch of the road to try to upgrade it a little. That is like trying to make a pair of long trousers out of a pair of shorts. It just will


not work. To have a dual carriageway for a major arterial road at this end of the century denies us the facilities that people have in other parts of Britain.
Recently, I raised this matter in the House and I was rubbished in The Daily Telegraph by some spotty boy called Simon Heller who said that I threatened to put concrete over the whole of east or west Yorkshire. I did nothing of the sort. However, I must tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and spotty Heifer that I am not alone in my quest. It has the unanimous support of every political party in the north-east, and that includes the Green party. We need to open up the arterial roads between the north-east, London and the Channel ports, yet, as far as I can make out, we are spending billions of pounds on repairing a road that is already inadequate. Even when that money has been spent and traffic can flow on that road, it will still be insufficient for the needs of the future.
I challenged my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to join me in a drive from here to my home. I said, "Come and spend a few days with me. We will spend only six hours in the car." He said that if he had to go to the north-east he would go by train, or fly. That is fine for my right hon. Friend, but it is not fine for families who cannot afford British Rail's fares, and it is not fine for every business man in the north-east who has all the expense of running his business but none of the road facilities that are available to people in other parts of the country.
We have the M4 and the M40, the M1 and the M6. Why cannot we have a major arterial road from Doncaster to the north-east of England? Its route would go through the county of Cleveland—that is if I have not been successful by then in having an enactment of the recommendation of the Teesside chamber of commerce, which again has universal support in my part of the country, to reorganise local government and do away with Cleveland county council.
When I set out on my journey home tomorrow with my wife, daughter, dog and all the other things that I have to take, it is no good my right hon. Friend telling me that I should fly or go by train, because that is no good for families. I urge the Government to stop spending money, stop tinkering with a road that is already there, and give serious consideration to the needs of the north-east. They should take on board the recommendations of all the people who require, need and use that road. They must stop listening to the officials—who play with their abacus and computer and always come up with the wrong answer—and give us what we in the north-east of England need so that in future I can get home in less than six hours.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Twenty six years ago to the week, I made my maiden speech in the House. A few months later. Harold Wilson, then Chairman, put me on the Public Accounts Committee, and, as Dick Crossman's Parliamentary Private Secretary, I worked with, and had an admiration for, Dame Evelyn Sharpe, the late Lady Sharpe, the permanent secretary of the Crossman diaries. I say that because I will not have it alleged that I am lighthearted about the Civil Service or insensitive to the rights of individual civil servants or oblivious to the difficulties of their position.
In 26 years, I have only brought on to the Floor of the House the names of Miss Colette Bowe and the dramatist personæ of Westland. Pre-1986, in 23 years, I had riot mentioned a civil servant, other than uncontroversially. I was, and am, an admirer of the British Civil Service.
Against that background, I believe that the House should not go into recess until the Prime Minister comes to the House to explain what appears to be deep impropriety at the very heart of Government. She should make a statement tomorrow, after Prime Minister's questions. This is not posturing—it is a matter of belief. Other than introducing the debate on the Queen's Speech, the Prime Minister has not made a speech in the House since the general election. This is a profoundly unsatisfactory state of affairs, which may partly account for the ill-concealed disdain for Parliament which some civil servants seem now to be developing.
I refer to early-day motion 1142 and a series of press reports suggesting that Mr. Charles Powell has turned down the offer of an ambassadorship in Stockholm and is holding out for an ambassadorship in either Washington or Paris. His picture appears on page three of The Guardian for Friday 20 May over the caption
Charles Powell … waiting for a plum posting.
The Guardian commented:
Powell has another string to his bow: he knows where the bodies are buried in the Westland affair. He escaped appearing before a select committee, but not their sharpest criticism for his orchestrating role in the leaking of a letter from the then solicitor general, Sir Patrick Mayhew, which ultimately resulted in Michael Heseltine's resignation.
I may add that it resulted in the resignation also of the scapegoat—the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan).
The implication is clear—that knowledge of wrongdoing by the Prime Minister places Mr. Powell in a position to demand the ambassadorship of Washington or Paris and to turn down Stockholm. I cannot imagine what other interpretation could be drawn from that article in The Guardian on Friday 20 May.
I went into great detail about the Westland affair in Hansard for 25 July 1986, for 29 October 1986, and in the Adjournment debate of 22 April 1988. As there remains only a short time and other hon. Members wish to speak, I just mention the long, detailed setting out of that case. The background, and my view of Mr. Powell in particular and of the Westland affair in general, is known to the Foreign Secretary, who took the initiative of writing to me; to the head of the home Civil Service, to whom wrote and who very courteously replied twice; and, prompted by an unusual approach, to Sir Patrick Wright, head of the Diplomatic Service, who also replied most courteously.
The press has clearly implied that the Prime Minister, in saving her own political skin over the Westland affair by misleading the House, has created a situation in which a senior civil servant has something on her—a hold over her—which, if he wished, would enable him to make demands.
Unfortunately, Mr. Powell cannot answer for himself, but the Prime Minister can, and she should. Having made him an accomplice in deceit over Westland, she should now tell the House of Commons what she knew about the Law Officer's letter, and when she knew it. She should also explain why she told my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 27 January:


I did not know about the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's own role in the matter of the disclosure until the inquiry had reported."—[Official Report, 27 January 1986; Vol. 90 c.657.]
We should assert ourselves, as Members of the House of Commons, in order to know the truth. The truth, for the House of Commons, goes far beyond party. The all too clear implication in the press is that we have a Prime Minister—a Head of Government—who by wrong doing and by giving civil servants a string to their bow, in their knowing
where the bodies are buried in the Westland Affair"—
which is the way in which the press put it, not me—has opened herself to the exertion of pressure or threats in an attempt, especially unfairly, to influence her actions. That phraseology is precisely the definition of the word "blackmail" given by Collins dictionary.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Before the House adjourns, it should consider a subject that is of importance to every hon. Member. Despite that, very few hon. Members are interested in it. I refer to the subject of community care, particularly for the elderly but for every other group as well. I imagine that every hon. Member has a relative or friend who is in need or receipt of community care services. In recent years, there has been a plethora of reports on the subject of community care, whether they have come from the National Audit Office, the Select Committee, Griffiths, Wagner, or the Firth working party. Those reports are now being digested by the Department of Health and Social Security, but in my view we are missing an important opportunity.
It is appropriate for this House to have the opportunity of discussing such matters before any decisions are taken about where responsibility for community care should properly reside. I say that knowing that there are thousands of social workers working under difficult and frequently dangerous conditions. They are overstressed and exceedingly anxious about both the extent of their powers and the degree of protection they can secure from the law, in the knowledge that if they make the slightest error they will be hauled before the bar of public opinion, either through the press or through this House, as if it were entirely their fault that some of the most difficult, distressing and dangerous cases with which anyone in society has to deal have gone wrong.
Social workers' morale is now low. Uncertainty about the future of community care and about the recommendations of the Griffiths report are contributing in no mean way to that lack of morale. Complex issues are involved. There are anxieties about, for example, the fact that this week has seen a three-year training term granted to nurses which has been refused to social workers. That raises many questions about where the responsibility for community care lies. If it is left to officials of the Department to take final decisions as to what should be done, and which are only then brought to the House for debate, it would be as though the whole of the jigsaw was assembled by someone else with only one small corner left for social workers and the social services. That would be the wrong way of making decisions about a service of such complexity and importance.
The social services embrace housing, social security benefits, and difficult issues such as child abuse and who should or should not be asked to leave home. They are also concerned with the question of how people should spend a dignified old age. It is entirely appropriate that the House should discuss those matters as a matter of urgency so that hon. Members may contribute their views and experiences into the mix before any decisions are taken.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am pleased to have been called, having been here throughout the debate. I have seen some Conservative Members wander in and be called after five minutes, which seems to suggest a somewhat unbalanced view of the way in which debates should be conducted. I should have thought that some preference would be given to those who had troubled to attend the whole debate.
I do not intend to speak for long, because my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), who has been here throughout the debate, wants to contribute. However, before the House rises for the recess I want to draw attention to the subject of school buildings in Bradford. This is a fairly mundane subject with none of the glamour of some of the topics that have been raised, but the facility is none the less vital for our schoolchildren in a major city.
Forty per cent. of Bradford's schools were built before 1906 and need refurbishing. Some are attractive, and I do not urge that they be replaced by modern concrete and steel-frame buildings, which are often ugly and unsatisfactory. But refurbishing Victorian schools, often affected by such radical difficulties as dry rot, is expensive. Refurbishment and replacement will require a great deal of money.
Bradford has an expanding school roll. It is one of the few major cities in this country to be in that position. Most of the problems being considered by education committees relate to diminishing rolls and what is to be done with school buildings, but over the past few years Bradford has seen the development of what might be called shanty-town schools, with temporary classrooms to accommodate the increasing numbers. In March this year, for example, there were 451 temporary units housing 567 classes, 17 nursery classes, three halls, 13 kitchen and dining units, five administration units and 11 toilets. Such accommodation should not be allowed to be based in temporary units to that extent.
There are other difficulties. In many cases the temporary units are becoming permanent, which means that they need repair. A mounting bill is inevitably placed on the local authority—which has a duty to provide the accommodation—to ensure that the temporary units fulfil their function and are kept wind and water tight. That means, in some cases, the local authority having to use capital expenditure to maintain temporary units when priority ought really to be given to permanent extensions to schools or, in some instances, completely new schools.
There was a fire in one of the temporary classrooms not long ago. It was reported by the local evening paper, the Bradford Telegraph and Argus, a copy of which was sent to the Secretary of State for Education and Science by the chairman of the education committee. As the Leader of the House will know, Bradford is an acutely fire-conscious city after the Bradford city football club fire disaster. It is felt


that the temporary units, constructed of rather more inflammable materials than brick and mortar, may be more vulnerable than the ordinary permanent buildings. As one of the units has been set on fire, probably through arson, the citizens of Bradford are concerned that the units should be replaced at the earliest opportunity. Some temporary units are inevitable, but not on the current scale.
More money is needed to finance the permanent construction of schools in Bradford. I recently visited a school in Queensbury in my constituency where there are four temporary classrooms. Another two are to be added because of the expanding numbers, and a toilet block is to be built to serve all six. In 1988, a local authority, because of central Government meanness, is to build an open-air toilet block to serve a number of temporary classrooms. The children will have to troop outside their classrooms across an open space to go to the toilet. For years in Victorian schools we have been trying to get rid of open toilets at the bottom of playgrounds. In winter, children have had to go out in bad weather and cross wet playgrounds. Yet, in 1988, those circumstances have been recreated because there is not the money to provide permanent extensions that have been badly needed for a number of years.
In another school in my constituency, in Wibsey, 12 temporary units are housing virtually a complete school. When I made representations to the local authority I was told that it did not have the money to do anything about the matter, although it acknowledges the need for a permanent extension to the existing school.
The Government have the money if they have the political will. They have given nearly £2 billion to the well-off. People in Bradford who are concerned about the issue may well bear in mind that the tax concessions to the rich in the recent Budget—indeed, a tiny fraction of that amount—could have been used to embark on a serious and wide-scale programme of building new schools and refurbishing tried and trusted but well-used Victorian schools which are badly in need of it.
The Government are embarking on the building of a new nuclear power station at Sizewell B. That is not necessary—our coal measures can supply us for the next 300 years—but we are to spend £1·5 billion at Sizewell. The Government have put through a statutory instrument that makes objections rather more difficult. Public inquiries will be held more speedily, so that Hinkley Point B nuclear power station can be given the go-ahead more quickly. That means a minimum of another £1·5 billion. We could be using some of that money for a basic construction purpose: providing new schools in my constituency, and no doubt in others as well.
Eleven billion pounds have been forked out by the Government on Trident. Only yesterday the Prime Minister spoke about Christian values and morality. Is the mass extermination of innocent men, women and children part of her Christian morality, and that of the Leader of the House? What section of the Bible will the Prime Minister quote to justify mass extermination by the use of nuclear weapons? We are to get more of them than ever before, and at a cost of £11 billion.
I plead with the Leader of the House for increased resources for Bradford—not even the money spent on nuclear power stations or nuclear weapons, but just the £3·5 million spent by the Department of Trade and Industry on giving prominence to the cronies of the

Secretary of State and saying how wonderful the internal market of 1992 will be. What a waste of money. Would it not have been better to put the money into schools in Bradford to give our children a decent start in life?

Mr. Allen: I do not know whether Bradford is blessed with a city technology college, but my constituency has a CTC nearby. That one CTC in my patch will cost more than the combined capital programme of all the schools in Nottinghamshire. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) is present. All the schools added together will not account for more expenditure than that one project. I do not know whether similar circumstances apply in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Cryer: I shall respond briefly because I know that we are rather short of time due to various Conservative Members' interventions.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science had the cheek to comment on the schools in Bradford and the enormous shortages that I have outlined to the effect that the local authority could find the money. He did not know whether the local authority could find the money or not. He is ignorant about education. In reality, Bradford is hard-pressed. That self same Secretary of State for Education gave the chairman of the chamber of commerce £30,000 simply to investigate the possibility of establishing a CTC in Bradford. That is a measure of the absurdity of the Government's priorities. I am happy to say that the investigation came to naught because Bradford has more than adequate facilities in the public sector for the provision envisaged in CTCs.
If we are to provide a proper education for our children and young people, we need adequate facilities. Bradford's schools are under pressure and they do not deserve to be. I hope that the Government will come up with some money to ensure that we have proper schools because children in Bradford deserve no less.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: I am wholeheartedly in favour of the motion. It would be hypocritical of me not to say that, as last week I introduced the Working Life (Reduction in Hours) Bill, which provides for longer statutory holidays. Therefore, I could not possibly object to the suggestion that we should take our holidays. I take this opportunity to remind the House that that Bill is to have its Second Reading on 8 July. As it is a pretty enlightening and far-sighted measure in the interests of working people, I am confident that the Government, true to form, will ensure that it is thrown out on 8 July.
My hon. Friends have drawn attention to the inadequacy of the Government—their failure to deliver on promises, the inadequacy of their funding for key services and the mistaken priorities that they have chosen. I am sure that the House will forgive me if I refer to a major development in my constituency.
A near-unique state of affairs is developing. Wrekin district council is beginning legal proceedings against the Telford development corporation because of the Government's repeated failure to deliver on their promise of a ballot for Telford development corporation tenants who are anxious to know who their future landlord will be. Ministers repeatedly promised a ballot among tenants. Then they heard the devastating news that in a ballot held


last November Peterborough tenants opted overwhelmingly for the local authority as the appropriate landlord to take over the houses after the conclusion of the development corporation.
As soon as the Government realise that a ballot will have results that they do not like, they postpone that ballot. In my constituency, tenants are now faced with a long period of uncertainty—up to two years—before being asked whether they want the district council or housing associations to take over their houses when the Telford development corporation is concluded. That delay is disgraceful, and the message from my constituency is that we must consult tenants on the matter.
I do not want to be entirely churlish in my concluding remarks. One heartening thing has come out of the Government in the past few days. It is perhaps in the spirit of the religious festival that we celebrated last week at Whitsuntide that the Prime Minister has at last decided that the political debate is a moral debate. I have held that view for many years, and I welcome the Prime Minister's conversion to it. I look forward to our debates on the subject because I am quite sure that her decision that we should now deal with the moral aspects of political argument will turn out to be the most monumental own goal in recent political history.
I have read the Sermon on the Mount many times. I have also read the 1987 Conservative party manifesto many times—purely for professional reasons, I may say. The only similarity that I have been able to discern between the versions of the two documents that I read was that they were both written in English. My hon. Friends have drawn attention to some of the moral issues that I hope will be at the forefront of political debate in the months and years ahead.
I am sorry that only five of my hon. Friends were able to contribute to the debate. They had a common theme, however. Every one of them drew the House's attention to the values that need to be espoused and the choices that need to be made by the country and the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who told us that he would be absent at this stage, rightly drew our attention, albeit 48 years after the event, to one of the profound evils of Fascism as it affected a case that came to his attention—the massacre by the SS of British troops. I know my hon. Friend's tenacity is such that he will persist in drawing that case to our attention.
I find it ironic that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr was followed by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who took a selective view of Fascism. He congratulated my hon. Friend on drawing our attention to Nazi atrocities but went on to act in his usual role as an apologist for the South African Government, ignoring the fact—which he should know as an expert on the subject—that key members of the Broederbond and the National party which has ruled South Africa for 40 years were active and keen Nazi supporters during the second world war.

Mr. Winnick: He is paid by the South African Government.

Mr. Grocott: They wanted Hitler to win. I hope that the hon. Member for Luton, North declares his position on that, and I hope that he will condemn them when he gets

the opportunity. He appears to think that the major moral issue facing the nation is the can of red paint thrown at the South African embassy. Nothing could contrast more dramatically with the issues that concern Opposition Members.

Mr. John Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you heard the comment made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who said, "He is paid by the South African Government." Is that an aspersion on an hon. Member's character?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear a comment from the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) to that effect, but if a comment was made that cast aspersions on the integrity of an hon. Member, I am sure that it will be withdrawn.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman was right—I did make that comment and I would not wish to deny it. Perhaps I can seek your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has not denied that he has visited South Africa at the expense of the South African authorities. That assertion has not been challenged, so surely I am right when I say that the hon. Gentleman is paid by South Africa.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Time is short. All I am saying is that it is not in order for an hon. Member to cast aspersions on another hon. Member. If the hon. Member felt that that is what happened, I hope that, with his usual courtesy, he will make it clear that that was not his intention.

Mr. Winnick: I do not basically withdraw anything that I said, but if you ask me to withdraw because you require it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in those circumstances—and only in those circumstances—I shall make the remarks that you wish me to make.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Grocott: The values of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) were shown clearly in his speech. He described how he would like the country to develop and spoke about the effects of the social security changes. Almost any right hon. or hon. Member could give examples of difficulty. My hon. Friend gave the example of an 84-year-old constituent who is paying an additional £18 a week in rent. We all know about the delays involved in making minor concessions such as the Government say that they will make.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the need for a fairer system of television licences for pensioners. I am sure that, if we appeal to the country not on the level of self-interest but on the basis of values and caring for other people who need assistance, my hon. Friend's appeal will be understood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) spoke about the effects of Health Service cuts in his constituency. Once again, we return to priorities and the moral choices that a Government have to make.
We then heard a speech characteristic of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). It is a clear illustration of Conservative Members' failure of judgment that they cannot see that tenacity, even in the


face of ridicule and constant prevarication and blocking tactics by Ministers, is the essence of parliamentary democracy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow will not let this matter go, whatever the jeers or sneers from Conservative Members. The issue will not go away, whichever party is in power. Anybody who thinks that this is an anti-Tory vendetta does not know my hon. Friend very well. He pursues injustice wherever it occurs. He is entitled to an answer to his questions. I regret to say that I doubt whether he will get an answer, but one will be forthcoming, even if it has to be written in the history books.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) also considered priorities and choices. He talked about the Victorian school buildings which are characteristic of much of his constituency. Once again we return to the choices which the Prime Minister told us that we should be making—the moral choices in politics. I suppose that our political opponents can say that the electorate is much more cynical than we in the Labour party would like it to be and that almost one year ago—we were all campaigning one year ago today—it opted for the party with the creed of self interest and rejected the idealistic approach.
I take heart from some recent polls. I wonder whether the Prime Minister knew the result of one of them before she decided, quite suddenly, to address herself to some of the moral issues in politics. A Harris poll shows that, although 48 per cent. of the population think that the country is richer than it was 10 years ago that is hardly surprising, in view of the bonus of North sea oil—no fewer than 61 per cent. of the population believe that people are more selfish. Only 19 per cent. think that people are more generous.
When asked whether, by and large, people are happy, the clear majority said that people are unhappier than they were 10 years ago and that the quality of life has deteriorated. For all the supermarkets and the phoney gloss of commercialism, the majority of our fellow citizens believe that the quality of life has declined in the past 10 years.
Although we shall undoubtedly adjourn for the spring recess, I welcome the political debate that will come when we return. I hope that hon. Members will find a few moments during the recess to skim again through the New Testament, as the Prime Minister has advised. I look forward to seeing to what extent the Government's actions match up to the New Testament. We all look forward to the debates that we shall have after we return.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): We have heard several good speeches, in which hon. Members have raised many constituency, national and international issues. As always on these occasions, I shall do my best to reply to all the points that have been raised, but in the event of time running short I shall refer any outstanding matters to my right hon. Friends to ensure that an appropriate reply is given.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) asked why there was no oral statement on the fair employment White Paper for Northern Ireland. As the White Paper, which has been published today, develops

proposals that have already been announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he thought that a statement today was not appropriate. The hon. Gentleman knows that Northern Ireland questions come top tomorrow, and I shall be surprised if some of the issues in the White Paper are not raised by the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends then.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have repeatedly made clear the Government's determination to eliminate religious discrimination in Northern Ireland and to promote genuine equality of opportunity. Compulsory monitoring is central to the success of that policy, and the fact that the Government propose that failure to register with the Fair Employment Commission or to submit monitoring returns should be a criminal offence reflects the seriousness that they attach to solving this serious economic and social problem. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing some of the arguments that he will make in the debates that we shall have on this issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) spoke about Manchester airport. He has raised the subject before, and I make no complaint about his raising it again. The Government have made repeated attempts to persuade the United States Government to negotiate traffic rights for United States airlines to serve Manchester airport. The United States Government finally agreed in March this year to negotiate on the issue, but no agreement was reached because the United States Government insisted that all their demands should be met, or none at all. They rejected a very reasonable package offered by the Government. The package would have permitted the immediate commencement of a daily non-stop service from Boston to Manchester, and a daily one-stop service from New York to Manchester. The United States Government have put off any further negotiations until early next year, but the Government hope to raise the matter before then if there are any suitable grounds for doing so.
My hon. Friend also mentioned Manchester airport's campaign against the Government. I am pleased to note that the airport board has decided to discontinue its confrontational and counterproductive campaign.
Manchester airport's efforts would be better used to encourage interested United States airlines to bring pressure on the United States Government to negotiate quickly and realistically.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill, about which I know he feels strongly. As I have said on a number of occasions, it is a well-known and long-standing practice of this Government not to provide additional time for any individual private Member's Bill. The rules that govern the conduct of private Member's business are decided upon by the House, and it is important that the Government, as much as individual hon. Members, should abide by them.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)—who told me that he unfortunately had to leave—raised the question of General Mohnke and the serious allegations that have been made against him. The evidence is being examined as a matter of urgency. This country has no jurisdiction in the matter—this was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo)—and that is why it is not covered in the Home Secretary's review of some of these matters. When


the evidence has been assessed, we will know what basis exists for approaching the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Mr. Winnick: With some urgency.

Mr. Wakeham: As I have said, the matter is being pursued as a matter of urgency, because we believe it to be important. However, it is not right for me to speculate on matters connected with the evidence now that it is being reviewed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) referred to the demonstrations outside the South African embassy. I admire the courage with which he puts his views, often unpopularly and at great personal and physical risk to himself. I do not always agree with what he says, but I admire the courage and the tenacity with which he puts his views. The day when hon. Members are not able to speak their minds will be a bad day for democracy.
The right to demonstrate, assemble and protest peaceably within the law is, of course, fundamental to our democratic way of life. However, the police can, and do, take action when demonstrators step over the line from peaceful protest to behaviour amounting to criminal conduct. There have been 46 arrests so far this year for offences such as the obstruction of police officers and a breach of the Westminster city council's noise byelaws. I shall refer my hon. Friend's concern to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) raised the question of housing benefit and the transitional unit. On 5 May my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled sent a helpful letter to all right hon. and hon. Members. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained during oral questions how the special unit that is being set up will operate. There is no need for the Minister or the Secretary of State to make a further statement to the House, but it is proposed that the special unit should last for two years, and the situation will then be reviewed.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North also raised the question of concessionary television licences. As we have made clear on a number of occasions, we do not consider that it would be right or sensible to give free or concessionary television licences to all pensioners, irrespective of need. That would be very expensive and would mean that other licence payers would have to pay a lot more. On 18 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department explained that many of the people for whom the scheme was never intended would have qualified under the previous regulations. The new regulations restore the scheme to its original intention, which was to benefit pensioners and disabled people in residential care or in equivalent sheltered accommodation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) rightly raised the question of the British Broadcasting Corporation. As he says, the Government have no control over the programming of the BBC, which is editorially and managerially independent. It is clearly a matter of regret if the BBC strays from its normally high standards of programme making, thereby causing offence to the Governments of the countries with whom we have friendly relations and with whom we hope to do economic
]
trade. It was right for my hon. Friend to raise the matter in the House and I hope that those responsible will take note.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) referred to Nirex. I recognise the concern of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. I remind him that I had to express the concern of my constituents during the time that I was not able to make a speech in the House. Fortunately, my right hon. Friend the Father of the House at that time seemed from time to time to utter thoughts that were not completely dissimilar from mine and those of my constituents. I have shown how grateful I was to him during my period of silence.
I cannot say very much about the issues that have been raised. Nirex has a responsibility. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that Members of Parliament should make known their views and the views of their constituents on the issues for which Nirex has responsibility. When I made my views and those of my constituents known to Nirex, I found that it listened to me, even though, as I said, I had to remain silent in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) raised two matters, one about abortion and the other about Select Committees. I listened with interest to what he said about the procedures of the House and whether the reform of the abortion law is a suitable subject for private Members' legislation. I am not completely persuaded by his arguments, although he put the point persuasively. The Government do not take a collective view on the moral issue of abortion, but consider that any new legislation of this kind is best kept to the initiative of private Members.
I noted what my hon. Friend said about the possibility of combining the abortion issue with any future Bill on the Warnock recommendations, but I am not sure that the issues are quite as comparable as he suggested.
The House of Commons Commission has approved the total amount of expenditure for overseas travel by Select Committees and has delegated to the Liaison Committee—as the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) tells us from time to time—the responsibility for allocating that sum to individual Select Committees. I do not think that it would be very wise of me to interfere at this time.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) rightly raised a number of questions about the Health Service in Nottingham. I do not know as much about the Health Service in Nottingham as he knows—or at least he should know—but I thought that his comments were to some extent unbalanced. For instance, he did not say anything about the fine teaching hospital and the fine work that is done on breast cancer in that area. I join him in the tribute that he paid to the nurses and staff who work in the Health Service in Nottingham.
I do not believe that any reasonable comments on the position would ignore the fact that Nottingham is a RAWP gaining area. There have been substantial increases in resources in Nottingham, there are about 200 more nurses in Nottingham this year than last year, the waiting lists have reduced over the past five years by about 30 per cent., there has been an enormous increase in the number of patients treated, and there has been a substantial increase in the capital expenditure in that area. Although there may still be some shortcomings, if one were to set the factors that I have mentioned against those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, one would get a more balanced view.
My hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) told us of the difficulties of getting home to his constituency. I shall make sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport takes on board the points that he made. There are three major schemes on the A1(M) and we regret that they inevitably cause delay. On that highly trafficked section of the route, as on other sections of the A1, we are accelerating the work to the maximum extent possible through the use of lane rental contracts. Our programmes have improved the A1 to dual three-lane standard and have increased the capacity of the road generally. However, I recognise that my hon. Friend will be inconvenienced for some time to come.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) carries on his campaign with increasing extravagance. However, I have to tell him—I do not think that he had the slightest expectation of anything else—that I have nothing further to add.

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Wakeham: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Dalyell: rose——

Mr. Wakeham: No, I shall not give way. I am about to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who raised the question of community care.
The Government are considering the recommendations of the Sir Roy Griffiths and Lady Wagner reports. We have said that we will bring forward our proposals on them in due course. The issues raised are complex and there is no obvious perfect solution. However, it is right that we should devote the necessary time to identifying the right answers. In the light of that, it is too early for me to comment on the form and timing of the Government's eventual response.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South referred to the level of capital allocations in his area. He is right to do that. I accept that Bradford has substantial capital problems in the school sector. Three main factors are responsible: rising rolls in the inner city, an unusually high proportion of very old buildings, and a serious accumulation and backlog of maintenance. In recognition of especially the first of those problems, Bradford has received comparatively large capital allocations for some years. Its allocation for 1987–88 was £6·303 million—the third highest among the metropolitan authorities and the eleventh highest in England. The hon. Gentleman was right to voice his concern and we recognise that there is a problem.
From the tone of the debate, no one seems to be against——

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments.)

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday 27th May, do adjourn until Tuesday 7th June, and that the House shall not adjourn on Friday 27th May until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill:

Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The remaining proceedings on Consideration and the proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(3) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Dilatory motions

2. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Motion under Standing Order No. 20: extra time

3. If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion.

Conclusion of proceedings

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing the proceedings on the Bill to a conclusion at the time required by this Order, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule Mr. Speaker shall put only the question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Recommittal

5.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Supplemental orders

6. The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

All that I had left to say at the end of the previous debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was to wish everybody a happy few days rest. I hope that it is not out of order if I start my speech on this debate with what would have been my concluding remarks for the last.

Ever since the Government proposed to bring forward legislation in this area, the timing of the passage of that legislation has been a matter of the keenest interest. In October last year, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was berated by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for
identifying a problem that he describes as urgent and then announcing that he proposes to remedy it some time during the middle of next year."—[Official Report, 26 October 1987; Vol. 121, c.29.]

In the Second Reading debate, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook described how in March 1987 the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) had written to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary saying that there was a need for tighter gun control. In those circumstances, it is somewhat surprising that the hon. Gentleman has said that he and his colleagues will oppose this motion to ensure the prompt passage after considerable discussion of the gun controls for which he had earlier called.

It is all the more surprising when one considers that I twice announced Monday's business—on 12 and on 19 May—and received no protest or criticism from the official Opposition. On 12 May, only the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) suggested that those arrangements would not provide sufficient time. I replied that my advice was that what I had announced was for the general convenience of the House and that we should have to see how we got on. At business questions the following week, no adverse comment at all was made, and there was nothing to suggest that the arrangements would not be generally acceptable.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: Is it not a fact that at the time of those business questions the Government had not tabled nearly 80 amendments? It was, in fact, the grouping by Mr. Speaker of 36 groups of amendments that made completing the Bill on Monday night so impractical, although the Government brought an end to the business long before it was necessary to do so.

Mr. Wakeham: I shall deal with all those points, but, of course, the Government always have to announce the business and agree it before Mr. Speaker has made his selection of amendments. As my hon. Friend, who has followed these matters closely, knows, the amendments were substantially about questions that had been raised in Committee and had been well rehearsed and discussed. Nevertheless, during my speech I shall seek to deal with the points that my hon. Friend has raised.
It would, I believe, have been generally unacceptable to have completed our consideration of the Bill on Monday by sitting well into Tuesday morning. As Leader of the House, it is my responsibility to ensure, whenever possible, that our business is conducted in an orderly way and for a length of time which is not unduly extended. That is why I have brought forward this motion. It provides for a maximum of five hours proceedings on this Bill from the start of this debate. At the very least, it will provide two hours to complete the Bill's remaining stages. If proceedings on the timetable motion do not last the three hours of which they are capable, there could be a further two to three in addition. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and his colleagues on having persuaded the Government that the

further discussion of this legislation merits this extra prime time rather than extend proceedings in the early hours of the morning.
It is true that more than 30 groups of amendments remain to be considered in the time available. There are two points to be made here. First, the Bill and its proposals have already been the subject of considerable consultation and discussion both inside this House and between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and interested organisations. In October there was a half-day debate, in Opposition time, on this subject, and in December my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was questioned on his oral statement announcing publication of the White Paper. On 21 January we had a full day's debate on the Bill, at the end of which it was given a Second Reading without a Division. Since then, the Bill has been considered in Standing Committee for 27½ hours and has already been considered on Report for more than six hours. For a Bill which comprises only 20 clauses and one schedule, I do not believe that that is unreasonable. Indeed, if the Standing Committee had wished to consider the Bill for longer, it could have done so.
Secondly, the time spent in consideration of the Bill has been well used—particularly from the point of view of my hon. Friends who wished to see changes to it in Committee. The Government have already agreed that a firearms consultative committee should be established and that it should be given statutory backing for an initial period of five years. We have also decided to "buy-in" firearms which will become prohibited under clause 1(2). We have made, and propose to make, a number of other changes to our original proposal——

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: First, on the point about compensation, I have been unable to obtain a copy of the Hansard report of the Second Reading debate because it is apparently out of print. Was there a Money or Ways and Means resolution and, if so, is a new one needed, given that compensation is now required? Secondly, I notice that the financial memorandum of the original Bill as at Second Reading made no reference to that. Should we not have a new financial memorandum on the Bill as it now stands?

Mr. Wakeham: My recollection is that we did that, subsequent to Second Reading, so I think that everything is in order. We have passed a Ways and Means resolution and all the necessary formalities. However, my right hon. Friend is right that that was not done at the time of the Second Reading. That covers the question of the buy-in scheme.

Mr. Higgins: Does there not need to be a financial resolution to finance the buy-in scheme?

Mr. Wakeham: Yes. The House approved that resolution at a later stage after the Bill had been given a Second Reading. It did so on one of the rare occasions when my right hon. Friend was not in his place.
My hon. Friends have identified three areas that require particular attention, and the Government have already made significant concessions on two—compensation and a consultative committee. Though differences of view in detail of bringing about these changes remain and may


deserve further discussion, in the circumstances I believe the amount of extra time proposed in the motion is adequate for the disposal of the outstanding points.
The other area to which my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) referred yesterday, self-loading rifles and the integral magazine of five to eight rounds, has already been raised both in Committee and in the debate on Monday about new clause 1, when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State explained the Government position. Nevertheless, and though the grouping of amendments is not a matter for me, I understand that later groups of amendments—119 and 128, and 91, 128 and 129—may give my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside the opportunity he seeks for a vote.
I will end my remarks now, because the more promptly the House is able to agree this motion, the more time there will be for further consideration of the Bill itself. The proposals from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary attracted a broad range of support when they were introduced and have, I believe, attracted further support as they have been amended in the light of the Standing Committee proceedings. I cannot conceive that it would be the will of the House as a whole that a measure on this important subject, which many Members, including the Opposition Front Bench, have long regarded as a matter of urgency and which enjoys the general favour of the House, should be debated at undue length in the early hours of the morning. On that basis, I commend the motion in my name to the House.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Everyone recognises that we are faced with a procedural curiosity. For the first time in living memory, a Conservative Government is introducing a guillotine motion to stop Conservative Members talking. The motion has not been introduced because the Opposition are opposing the Bill.
The Labour party supports stricter controls on the advertising, sale, use and possession of guns and ammunition. As the Leader of the House has said, London Labour Members, faced with the increasing unlawful use of guns in the capital, and in response to representations made by those whom they represent and from the Metropolitan police at all levels, have been urging such controls on the Home Secretary, and began to do so long before the disastrous events at Hungerford, which precipitated the Government's change of view and the introduction of the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made it clear on Second Reading that he supported the objects of the Bill. However, he expressed doubts, to say the least, about a considerable number of provisions and called for other provisions to be included by way of new clauses and amendments. Throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee the Opposition argued for amendments that have not been made and for new clauses that have not been included. On several occasions the votes of Opposition Members in Committee sustained the avowed objectives of the Bill as laid down by the Government. The Government would have lost a substantial number of Divisions to Conservative Back Benchers if the Labour Opposition had voted with those Back Benchers or had abstained. We

voted with the Government in Committee on these occasions because we believed in the greater control of guns and ammunition.
We believe also that the Bill raises serious matters and deserves careful and well-informed consideration. It is because we want the Bill to succeed, and because we think that its provisions, the amendments and the new clauses deserve careful and well-informed consideration, that we oppose the motion.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: If that is so, will the hon. Gentleman tell us why there are only six Labour Members in their places to discuss the issue?

Mr. Dobson: It may have something to do with the usual quality of my oratory. I expect that many of my hon. Friends will arrive in the Chamber once the meat of the Bill is to be discussed.

Mr. Bennett: rose——

Mr. Dobson: No. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. These are serious matters and I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to make his own comments in his inimitable way when he gets the opportunity to do so.
When we began to consider the Bill on Report, the Government had tabled no fewer than five new clauses and more than 60 amendments to cure some of the shortcomings that had been identified in Committee. They proposed, by a mind-boggling afterthought, to extend the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. As everyone knows, death and injury from the use and misuse of guns are terrifying facts of everyday life in Northern Ireland. To think that a Bill that has been shown to be ill thought out and badly drafted even to meet the circumstances prevailing in England, Scotland and Wales can be applied in hasty afterthought to Northern Ireland beggars belief and is an insult to the House. To curtail debates on amendments that had to be tabled once it was known that the Government intended to extend the Bill to cover Northern Ireland is an extraordinary action on the Government's part.
If the motion is accepted—we believe that it will be—it will result in inadequate consideration of the Bill. That will lead to the enactment of a Bill that will be difficult to understand and difficult for the police to enforce. It will be puzzling for the courts to interpret. Legitimate gun owners and former legitimate gun owners will be left with a sense of grievance. All in all, it is a bad job and a botched job.
The inclusion of Northern Ireland at a late stage is not the only afterthought that the Government have had on the Bill. The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has observed that at one stage the Government rejected the idea of compensation for those who owned guns that would have to be dispensed with when the Bill took its place on the statute book. At a later stage the Government said that they were willing to accept that the principle of compensation should be debated in Committee. So the House then had to consider a further supplementary money order, which was accepted.
I understand from hon. Members on both sides of the House that the debates in Committee were unsatisfactory and that important aspects of compensation have yet to be resolved. However, the guillotine motion will prevent the necessary discussions on compensation taking place. After the proceedings that are to take place this evening, and after the guillotine finally falls, the Bill will proceed to


another place. It is curious that the guillotine motion does not propose a timetable for the consideration of any amendments that are made in another place. I am not sure whether this is a further oversight on the Government's part or whether it is the product of foresight. Can it be that the Government envisage that the shooting interests of those in another place will produce so many amendments that it will be impossible to avoid a lengthy debate upon them when they are referred to this place?
The Government have been crowing this week about the recent large majorities that they have enjoyed in the other place. It cannot be denied that when the Government sent their beaters through the backwoods they flushed out a remarkable collection of odd, old birds whose natural habitat is a long way from Westminster. There were even rumours running through this place that Lord Lucan had been spotted in one of the Lobbies—presumably among the Not Contents.
If the same hereditary peers who thronged within the other place to support the poll tax were urged to return to debate the Bill, the likelihood is that they would not like it and that they would do it severe damage. That makes it all the more odd to hear another rumour this afternoon—I hope the Lord President will take this opportunity to confirm its truth, or otherwise—that the Government have already decided they will not attempt to impose a Whip on the Bill in the House of Lords because they do not think it would stick. It seems preposterous and an odd way of doing things to guillotine the proceedings of this House without even trying to impose a Whip in the Lords.

Mr. John Biffen: This is not a particularly happy evening for my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, but I want to assure him at the outset that I shall be happy to join him in the Division Lobby to ensure the prosecution of this proposal. I shall do so for a number of reasons—[Interruption.]—and my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) should not be too distraught.
First, I do not think that my right hon. Friend is the author of this evening's misfortune. I listened to his unmistakeable honeyed words, but I fancy the authorship lies with the Home Office. This would not be the first or last occasion when Leaders of the House have been required to use brisk methods to get through matters of Parliamentary business that have been sanctified by Front Bench agreement. That is exactly what there was when, on a previous occasion, Tory dissidents were subject to a timetable motion.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said this was a procedural curiosity, but I remember only too well the time when the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill wound its way with perhaps too much dilatoriness through the House. The timetable motion was carried, but let us look at the work that was then fashioned. What happened to the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill? Just because some item of business is sanctified by cross-Front Bench approval, that does not guarantee that it has any more merit or likelihood of durability. That is the dilemma and agony of my right hon. Friend; it is why I feel such a sense of brotherhood with him this evening, and why I shall support him.
I hope that the fact that I shall support my right hon. Friend tonight will mean that the four observations that I want to make will be the more firmly bound to his heart. But there is one other reason why I shall support my right hon. Friend with deep affection: he has conducted speech and argument with no reference to morality. The moral peaks have been deserted—suddenly, here is a sanctuary. I want to speak on behalf of what I believe to be the silent majority in the House—the publicans and sinners. We have been given some welcome respite from the foghorn of conscience that has blasted through the Chamber over the past few days.
I believe that my four observations are of real concern to the House. The first is really rather like the C. Northcote Parkinson syndrome: the board votes £50 million or £500 million-worth of capital expenditure and then spends half the morning discussing painting the bicycle shed. Here we have a timetable motion that we can understand. No one could contest the fact that the Education Reform Bill or the community charge legislation require timetables. On this occasion we are bound to ask why it has not been possible to find some occasion, either this side of the recess or shortly thereafter, when the necessary number of hours could be found to dispatch this business without bringing us here for the formalities of a timetable.
Many people watching our procedures outside will conclude that the Government's programme must be running into difficulties, or at least into tight circumstances. They will wonder what on earth would have happened if the Lords had not loyally supported the Government on the community charge. They would think that there must surely have been some provision, just in case the vote went wrong, but now it seems that the whole programme is so tightly structured that we must have a timetable motion to dispose of half the Report stage of what I suppose is a grade 2 unlisted piece of legislation. The House would like some reassurance about these points.
Secondly, no timetable motion is an island unto itself. This one will be looked at not only in relation to what has happened in the past but to what might happen in the near future. I have no idea what the final fate of the arguments about the Abortion (Amendment) Bill will be, but should the provisions of that Bill be attached to another piece of legislation, as has been postulated in the press, I hope that my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will think long and seriously before proceeding with any timetable motion that would affect legislation that incorporated the provisions of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. We must consider that, because what happens now will inevitably cast a shadow on that possible legislative development some weeks hence. It may never come about, but the House would be neglectful if it did not consider the possibility.
Thirdly, the Bill now contains provisions for Northern Ireland that were introduced at a late stage. I would not anticipate the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) but the House knows, from its intimate concern with Northern Ireland affairs over the years, that the idea of transforming British legislation into United Kingdom legislation by making a common provision for the Province is a matter of considerable constitutional significance, which I suspect would split the House in several directions. I shall not dwell on that this evening, except to say that one cannot introduce legislation of this character, with its implications for


precedent, on some sort of side wind introduced on Report. That is not a proper use of parliamentary procedure.
My final point about what will happen in another place has already been made. This is not a happy evening, but I hope with all my heart that it will see the end of this Bill in the House of Commons.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: What would be wrong if it had more time?

Mr. Biffen: That very intervention, coming from the quarter that it does, and with the zeal that it does, persuades me that it would be unhappy to have the Bill here again. It would all he stored up for the future, and its return in July would not be for the good health of the Government.
We know that the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentleman-at-Arms, rightly described this evening as more of a beater than a Whip, has been extremely successful. My anxiety is that the flock that flew on Monday were homing pigeons, and that they will come back again and provide more embarrassment for the Government on this legislation than they did on the community charge.
We have made no provision to deal with the Lords amendments under the security of the timetable motion. Why was it decided not to provide the security of a timetable motion for amendments in the other place? There must be some rationale behind that. The House is entitled to answers to those questions.
I end as I began. My right hon. Friend has had a difficult task to discharge. I shall be delighted to support him, and I urge my hon. Friends to do likewise.

Mr. William Ross: We have listened to a most interesting and entertaining speech from the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He referred to the fact that the Bill was extended to Northern Ireland at the last moment, a matter which annoys Northern Ireland Members intensely. That should not become a precedent. If the Government were to pursue this course in future, time and again legislation for Northern Ireland would be introduced and we would not even know it was coming. Only a fortnight ago today the amendment extending the Bill to Northern Ireland was tabled and it was just by chance that I happened to notice it the next morning.
That is not the only problem. The real difficulty is that, before we proceed with this Bill, we need to figure out exactly how we come to be here this evening and why we have a Bill which apparently needs so much amendment. It goes back to the Home Secretary's speech in September 1987, when he referred to rifles of the type used by Ryan. He gave a public undertaking at that time, no doubt speaking on behalf of the Government, that these rifles would be banned. Considering the period between the incident at Hungerford and his speech, he cannot have taken time to consult his hon. Friends, such as the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who know about these matters. In other words, he reacted without thinking the matter through. The Hungerford horror is the foundation of this Bill, and a mighty poor foundation it is.
If I had not served in Committee I might not have tabled as many questions as I did, but my interest was

aroused by what I heard there and the correspondence that I received. I understand that the police should carry out the firearms procedures with great precision. When I started to receive answers saying that events happened on or about certain dates; when I was told that the ammunition used was armour-piercing when it was nothing of the sort, thereby betraying that the Home Office did not have the expertise to distinguish the one from the other; when I was told that the alleged bullet-proof jacket was a Barbour body warmer; when I was given wrong dates which were subsequently corrected but only after I had tabled further questions; and when I found out that some of the information for which I asked but which I was not given was safe and well in a policeman's pocketbook, I began to wonder what on earth was going on.
The only reasonable and proper course to follow is to have a full public inquiry into the offence on the day at Hungerford when there was immense confusion—which one can understand considering the unprecedented conditions—and, more important, into whether the Thames Valley police followed their procedures on the possession of weapons in Ryan's case. I am particularly interested to know whether Constables Hoyes and Wainwright, who interviewed Ryan at various times, saw his membership cards and all that they were supposed to see, or whether they merely took his word on that.
If there is no public inquiry, there is no way that the Government can prevent the reopening of the inquest into the incident. Sixteen people were killed and a great deal of material damage was done. There are also undoubtedly an enormous number of claims for compensation against insurance companies which can be reopened, when clever barristers will undoubtedly ask nasty questions of the police force which is looking after the Home Secretary's constituents.
I am skimming over this because there is a great deal to do and I do not want to waste time. The Government in their panic quickly to allay public fear found themselves running with the mob and shouting against firearms. The truth is that firearms legislation is an extremely difficult and complex subject. There should normally be two or three years of gestation before it comes to light, with full, long debates among all interested parties. The fact that we have this huge number of sensible amendments tonight is positive proof to anybody who knows the subject that the Government have lost the argument and are using the jackboot.
In Committee it was interesting to see how Labour Members, who were initially as committed to the legislation as the Government, changed their minds. The Government were committed by the Home Secretary's speech, but ineffective law is not the answer to the problems of gun control. There should be a common-sense acceptance of the limits that the law can accomplish. The Government should have done what the 1984 working party on the firearms legislation sought, which was to have a single, comprehensive system of administration of our firearms legislation in all police forces. If the Home Secretary had noted such advice and questions, Ryan might never have got his guns and we might not have been here this evening.

Sir Hector Monro: It is a sad day for me to know that we shall make further progress on a Bill which


I know to be wrong. I have been in the House for a long time and I have never felt less happy about the passage of a Bill through Parliament.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) talked about morality, but with the high profile of the Home Office Ministers on moral standards, the words I use in this context are "fairness" and "justice". Few legitimate shooters feel that they are receiving justice from the Home Office tonight.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that we had had a lengthy time to debate the Bill on Monday night, but the Government have tabled a huge number of amendments at a late stage. We made good progress on the subjects that we are discussing, considering the grouping of amendments. Some people may describe this as a guillotine, but shooting people think it is more like a firing squad, and they have had no chance to plead their case properly. We should oppose the motion so that they get a fair hearing, particularly bearing in mind the enormous addition of Northern Ireland to the Bill.
The sad event that we all deplore was in August. Without consultation, although the British Shooting Sports Council and other governing bodies asked for consultation, the Home Secretary made his announcement at the end of September in such detail that he could not have consultations later to reverse his recommendations. So we had a White Paper and, a couple of weeks later, a Bill. Nobody can conceivably believe that they were not both printed together. There was no effective consultation between the White Paper and the Bill.
The Second Reading certainly showed that there was little support for the Bill. We had a good Committee stage with all-party discussion and a number of Government defeats. There would have been many more Government defeats had we not listened assiduously to the Under-Secretary of State, who gave many intimations that he would look favourably on the amendments before the Committee. We should have examined in greater detail the small print which he produced in answer to our pleas.
Tonight we should have two debates—it is unlikely that we shall have time for both, which is disappointing and the reason why I oppose the motion—on the self-loading rifle in relation to disablement. On Monday the Minister did not respond to that issue. I wish to read out three extracts from letters I received today. John Brough of Halewood on Merseyside writes:
I now have arthritis throughout my body and can hardly shoot at all, although it has been central to my life. Occasionally, if I am picked up and put in position, I can fire with my old self-loading rifle. Without it, that is the end for me.
People like me had hoped and believed that Mr. Hogg was going to make an exception for small-magazine self-loading rifles. But now we see he has dropped the idea.
I have also received information about Mr. Dave Adams in my constituency who had a serious accident, was caught up in a lathe and can now shoot only with a self-loading rifle. He will have to give up his sport because of the Bill. I have also received information about Mr. Colin Marshall of Carlisle, who admits that he has an FN FAL 7·62 self-loading rifle. He says that he accepts that he must part with that, but he would buy an integral-magazine rifle so that he can continue the sport he loves.
Why are the Government hammering away at the disabled and not allowing them to carry on with small

integral-magazine self-loading rifles? I hope that the Minister will give an early undertaking that he will concede amendment No. 91 for five-shot integral magazines. If he does that, we can make rapid progress tonight, but I want to know in detail, when he winds up, why the Government have their knife into those people who are disabled and want to use small-magazine self-loading rifles. I cannot find any reason to justify the attitude that they have taken.
There are many makes of such rifles available. I have today received a telex from Ruger in America saying that it can provide a five-shot six-magazine rifle. If we make small-magazine self-loading rifles legal, the gun trade will provide those guns so that people can continue to enjoy the sport. The Minister's attitude, that there are not sufficient rifles to justify that course, does not stand up.
We have not had time to debate this issue tonight, but I am concerned that some police forces are now behaving as if the Bill were already in force, although it has a long way to go. They are making great difficulties about SLRs and are now being difficult about automatic pistols as well.
Amendment No. 148 and the other amendments in that group have been selected early but will be voted upon late. If the Minister wants his party to go home early tonight, he has only to say that he will not move amendment No. 148 and the others in that group and will therefore leave the consultative committee in the Bill, as we had expected him to do following debate in Committee. We were particularly disappointed, having been assured by the Government last Thursday that the consultative committee would remain in the Bill, to find, on Friday morning, that a whole host of amendments had been tabled, making a mockery of what we put into the Bill. That is why we resent so much the Government's approach.
Those are the two main reasons why we need more time tonight. Nothing in the Bill will have any effect on the armed crime in this country that all of us are so keen to see reduced. The Home Secretary has hauled out the 1973 Green Paper which was thown out by the Conservative party at that time, and has transformed it into this Bill, which is so unacceptable to those who know a little about shooting. We have had a Second Reading, a Committee stage and a Report stage and—perhaps the only honourable exception has been my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson)—no one has spoken in support of the Bill, except the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), which in itself should be the death knell for any Bill.
I ask the Government to think again about the SLR and the consultative committee. If the Minister agrees to do so, and announces it tonight, he will be able to make quick progress and the party can go home early. But he must announce those concessions.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I also oppose the guillotine motion. Like other hon. Members, I look forward with interest to observing the fate of the Bill when it reaches the other place, but perhaps I might offer this advice to Ministers. If they ensure that the Bill reaches the other place after 12 August and before 1 February, many of those peers who turned out this week to help them on another matter might be engaged elsewhere and the Bill might have a better chance.
The unhappy circumstances in which we find ourselves this evening are a direct consequence of the history of this


measure. The unfortunate events in Hungerford in August promoted, or perhaps to put it more correctly provoked, a very early White Paper. I do not blame the Government for that because the general sense of apprehension and revulsion which those events caused was undoubtedly a justification for an early implication of what the Government might propose to do, but that White Paper was followed hard on its heels by a Bill.
There can be no question but that there was no proper consultation with the relevant shooting authorities between the publication of the White Paper and the publication of the Bill. That lack of consultation has given rise to so much of my mail—I have no doubt other hon. Members have received similar mail—from people who are legitimately entitled to use and keep weapons. If the White Paper was rushed out as an early and urgent response to the events of Hungerford, that itself made even more acute the requirement that there should be proper consultation.
The Bill then received its Second Reading. I do not believe that it does any disservice to history to say that, on that occasion, the Bill had hardly a friend in the House. If the fate of the Bill had been determined by speeches made about it on that occasion, it would certainly have gone no further. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, so I cannot speak with authority about that, but the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has told us of the concessions that the Government have made in relation to compensation and the consultative committee. One pauses only to observe that, if there had been a consultative committee such as was conceded in Committee, many of the defects of the legislation which have been isolated by scrutiny in this House would not have existed and the circumstances in which the Government now find themselves would have been eradicated.
I would not for a moment seek to do other than accept the constitutional observations of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) about the Northern Ireland provisions. Those appear to be well taken points to which the House should give close scrutiny. However, the addition of Northern Ireland at that late stage was grossly provocative. What was in the Government's mind when they introduced Northern Ireland into the Bill? How did they expect Northern Ireland Members to respond? It was, at the very least, an insensitive and unnecessary provocation.
This legislation has been hasty. It may or may not deserve the description of botched, but it is certainly an example of Government mismanagement, and a guillotine in this House should not be available to save the Government from the consequences of their own actions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Perhaps I should remind the House that the longer we spend on this motion the less time there will be to debate the amendments.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I have never hidden from the House the fact that my reason for being involved in this Bill is, at least to some extent, the dreadful massacre that happened in my constituency nine months ago. Therefore, my last duty to the 16 people, almost all of whom were my constituents, who were killed on that day and to the 14 who were wounded is to see the Bill through and on to the statute book as soon as possible.
We all remember the media reaction to the news of that event. The view was expressed in many quarters that it was time for greater control on guns in this country. I suggest that this 20-clause Bill achieves at least some of the objectives that we want it to achieve.
I am told endlessly by people in the shooting lobby that if they had been given more time the Bill could have been much better. The shooting lobby has sent me material which I have ploughed through. I sat through 27½ hours in Standing Committee, and all I can say is that the amendments and the speeches do not seem to have produced any strong, fresh proposals which could have been enacted by any Home Secretary. The Bill is as good as any Firearms Bill could he at the moment.
No doubt arguments will be set out in later stages for other changes in the law. I suggest that at the moment this is the best Bill that could come before the House. I hope that it will become an Act before we reach the first anniversary of what happened at Hungerford.

Mr. Michael Colvin: We all echo sincerely the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). If the Government refrain from amending the Bill, as they intend, perhaps the Bill will reach another place in a reasonably acceptable fashion. The purpose of this guillotine motion is to remove from their shoulders the embarrassment that the Government feel at having got themselves into this position and place it on the shoulders of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken on behalf of the 2 million shooters and 3 million people who support the shooting lobby—5 million people in all.
The Standing Committee did a first-class job. I was not a member of the Committee, but the Bill came out of Committee much better than it went in. The Government are now doing their best to emasculate the Bill and the consultative committee. They are not honouring their commitment on self-loading rifles with integral magazines of five rounds, and they are not going far enough on compensation. I do not want to be party to a conspiracy to rob people of their property. That is what the Bill does. Conservative Members are sometimes criticised for believing in private property. I do not want to support a party which says that it will make unlawful some property which has been purchased and provide only 50 per cent. of the value when unlawful weapons are confiscated.
On Monday the House should have recommitted the Bill to the Standing Committee, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) proposed. It did not do so because when the decision to debate the Bill on Report was made the previous week, we had been given a firm sign from the Government that they would listen to our representations and perhaps compromise on their stand. We should have tabled the motion on Thursday. Had that happened, we would have had time to brief our Conservative colleagues, many of whom were supportive of the motion on Monday, but would not follow us in the Lobby because they had not been through the normal practice of warning the Whips that they would vote against the Government: on a three-line Whip.
Hon. Members have referred to Ulster. I have tried to discover how the House forms legislation for Ulster. The answer is simple. The Government do what they feel they


should do according to the circumstances. There are no rules. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) was treated very shabbily in that respect.
The Government are likely to find themselves in an embarrassing position in another place. I have no idea what will happen this evening with regard to votes. We will listen attentively to what Ministers have to say. If we win the small concessions that we want, the chances are that the Bill will go to another place in a reasonable state.
We understand that there is no really effective official Opposition in this Parliament. Presumably that is why the Government now seem intent on winning recruits for their awkward squad from Conservative Members who have hitherto been among the Government's staunchest supporters. The Government are becoming the opposite of Austen Chamberlain. People said of him that he always played the game and always lost. This Government are beginning never to play the game, and, because of the three-line Whipping system, they will never lose.

Sir John Farr: I want, first, to comment on the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who criticised my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for saying that there should possibly be a mechanism in the motion to provide for a guillotine in another place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North may not have thought of the fact, which I understand to be true, that the other place, by and large, believes that the Bill is not bad. Therefore, it may not be necessary for a guillotine to operate there. The Bill was considerably amended in Committee—more than it should have been, in my opinion—and when it is considered in the other place there may be only a few amendments, which would make a guillotine unnecessary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said that he had not heard anyone in this place speak in favour of the Bill. I believe that the Bill is first-class. It has been first-class all along, and the only thing wrong with it is that the Government were bamboozled in Standing Committee into making outrageous concessions. The one concession which no self-respecting Government should have made relates to compensation for firearms that are removed from circulation. I have received information which establishes firmly for me the fact that anyone with a weapon that is taken out of circulation as a result of the Bill will receive the market price. There are always European and world prices for weapons. It is immaterial whether they are licensed.
The Government made another concession by agreeing to set up a statutory standing consultative committee, for which the firearms lobby has been clamouring for years. I never heard anyone say, "Thank you for the committee." For years my hon. Friends have said that that committee should exist to allow the firearms lobby to be heard and consulted by the Government. They have been given the committee, but I am not sure that they deserve it. They have been given the right to compensation, and also a statutory committee. In addition, the Government made a concession, which I believe was unwise, over Northern Ireland.
Most of my constituents believe that Hungerford changed the tenor and course of firearms legislation in Britain. They demand that the Home Secretary take action. I believe that the original Bill that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary placed before the House some time ago was far better than the amended creature before us today.
Another reason why I shall vote in favour of the guillotine motion, apart from the public's general desire for a new, meaningful Firearms Act on the statute book, is related to an incident that occurred nearly a year ago. Many people may have forgotten this. Alan Bray, a gun dealer at Hinckley in Leicestershire near my constituency, was beaten up by intruders, bound, doused with petrol and set alight while he was still alive. Local people will have to deal with such problems. The sooner we have a meaningful new Firearms Act, the better.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I had not been in the House very long before I realised the great merits of guillotine motions. Therefore, it is with a heavy heart that I shall vote against this one tonight. I have great sympathy for my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who joined the House on the same day as me. I too had a disaster in my constituency and I know what my hon. Friend has been through. I must tell the House that if the Bill had been enacted before the incident at Hungerford, it would not have prevented it. More than half of those who were killed in that terrible incident were not killed with a self-loading rifle. My hon. Friend has admitted that that proposition is correct.
I know that the House is in a hurry, and I have just one point to make because this is the first opportunity I have had to seek a response from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. What is the reason for the Bill? Throughout the Committee stage, the Under-Secretary denied that Hungerford was the reason. There is no secret in the fact, however, that a Bill was hastily brought down from a dusty shelf and produced before us in answer to some imaginary public demand that something should be done.
Nothing is being done in the Bill that will affect crime and nothing is being done that would have stopped the tragedy at Hungerford. I believe that the Government have made a grave mistake in responding so hastily and so unwisely. I make no apology for having given the Bill as rough a ride as possible. I believe that those who agree with me have won the argument, and I am sorry that we shall lose the vote.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I do not intend to delay the House long because I am aware that we want to get to the vote. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow. Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is making a lot of noise in support, which makes a pleasant change.
It saddens me that, and I confess that I do not understand how, somebody for whom I have the deepest respect—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—can bring to the House a Bill that initially contained a clause that amounted to confiscation of lawfully owned property. That is something that the Conservative party has always opposed, and I understood it to be among the most important of our principles.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in a speech marked for its humour and not its content, told us that a concession had been made in Committee. He said that the Government are now going to give compensation for taking away a lawfully owned rifle. I find it extraordinary that anyone can describe as a concession something that is fundamental to the beliefs that we hold. When we discuss that compensation, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be able to confirm that he is prepared to be even more lenient in his treatment of people who hold such weapons. I hope that that compensation will accurately and properly reflect the value that the owner could expect to get on the market. At the moment, the clause does not offer that.
On Monday night, we discussed Northern Ireland at some great length. I pay great credit to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office for apologising to the House for having introduced the amendments so late. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) that this is no way in which to bring in legislation of such great significance. It is disgraceful that the Government should have introduced such amendments after the Committee stage—which lasted a long time. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) sat on that Committee, but was denied the opportunity to discuss the implications for Northern Ireland because he did not know that such amendments were to be introduced. As I understand it from Monday night's debate, the Government were well aware during the Committee stage that they were proposing to bring in amendments to affect Northern Ireland.
The Government's decisions on compensation and on Northern Ireland are wholly unacceptable to me and I believe to most of us on the Government Back Benches. When the dreadful day comes when our party moves back to be the Opposition, we will rue the precedents we are creating in the Bill.
The first specific point that I wish to make relates to firearms. I do not understand why my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will not be more flexible about SLRs. It has been rightly pointed out many times that, in Committee, my hon. Friend was flexible and understanding on all the important issues in the Bill—or appeared to be—and he made concessions which we all recognise have vastly improved the Bill. In its initial drafting the Bill must rank as one of the worst ever brought before the House. Why is my hon. Friend sticking on SLRs? [Interruption.] I would he grateful if Opposition Members spoke more quietly, as I can hardly hear myself.
I want to know why the Under-Secretary believes that the banishment of the SLR from the arsenal of weapons that are held lawfully in this country is essential. I accept the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) has made, and I understand why he has done so. Of course a Bill had to be introduced, but it should not have been so rushed and it should not have been introduced in its present form.
What is so significant about the SLR? My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has already said that it is essential to the handicapped. It is useful to many deerstalkers and particularly for culling, as opposed to the sporting pursuit of deer. That rifle is essential to our sporting teams in international competition. They should be able to use the same weapons as their competitors.
The Under-Secretary of State has said that there are not many such rifles, and he mentioned the Beretta. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that more than 30,000 such weapons exist in the United States and more than 3,000 are to be found in Europe. I did not understand the logic of his argument that the number of SLRs is insignificant and that we should not allow for them in our legislation. That weapon is essential for our international sportsmen to compete adequately in the international arena. I must repeat that the compensation offered in the Bill is inadequate and must be improved.
You said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that when we moved on from discussing the guillotine, we could discuss the Bill in detail. In reality, we can do nothing of the sort. We took six hours to debate the first five groups of amendments on Monday and I can say with honesty that nobody to whom I listened during that debate—I was present for all of it—filibustered. All the contributions were sensible and to the point. We have 33 such groups left and we are supposed to debate them in the next four hours. That is absurd. I believe that the Government, aware of the weakness of their case, do not wish us to consider the Bill properly.
I do not accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr) said. I did not understand the logic of his speech. He was not here on Monday night, he did not listen to the arguments. If he had been here, I am sure that he would not have made the speech that he did tonight. Nothing that he said in support of the Bill bears examination. I hope that he was wrong when he said that our noble Friends in another place will accept the Bill. I should have thought that when they consider the arguments they will find the Bill unacceptable. I look forward to a different Bill coming back to the House in due course.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I shall vote against the guillotine, for two reasons. First, I believe that it is a demonstration of extraordinary maladroit man management by the Government. I played some small part on the last occasion when a guillotine was directed by the Government against their own supporters on the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill. Certainly we were prolonging the proceedings with a view to trying not only to appeal to the broad spirit of Unionism within the country, but also to demonstrate that the Northern Ireland Assembly would never work. The fact that we were right and that the Government have since suffered a major humiliation is not material to this argument.
There are perhaps between six and 10 hon. Members who have strongly felt views about the details of the legislation. They are not seeking to appeal by great principles to a broad body of people outside the House of Commons; they wish merely to get a slightly better deal on some of the details of the legislation. Their legitimate complaint could have been dealt with perfectly adequately over a longer period by those on the ever-growing payroll in the Conservative party. If the payroll cannot stay up occasionally to vote down 10 people, it is a poor lookout.
This is a most disagreeable display of macho vigour, presumably by junior Ministers at the Home Office and the more energetic and less wise members of the Whips Office. It would have been a great deal better if the matter had been argued through for a few more evenings, if the


payroll had been here to vote and if some of the younger and more enthusiastic members of the Tory party who wish to ingratiate themselves with the Administration had been obliged to look up a few points which no doubt would have been supplied to them by the Home Office. Instead, 10 or 12 hon. Members have been given a legitimate grievance which they will feel for the rest of this Parliament. That is a small House of Commons point, and it shows that even the Tory party, which used to pride itself on its wisdom and sensitivity in man management, can make mistakes.
However, there is a wider and more constitutional point. Some hon. Members in the Conservative and Unionist parties have tried to explain to the people of Northern Ireland that their interests and their grievances should properly be ventilated in this place. The people of Northern Ireland are entitled to say, "First of all, we had Stormont foisted upon us, and we did not want that. Over 50 years we achieved some affection for that institution. As our affection for that institution developed, our respect and affection for Westminster sadly diminished. Then they gave us direct rule and tried to persuade us that our interests would be dealt with in the House of Commons. They said to us, quite legitimately, that they in the House of Commons have proper rules of procedure and if we have a grievance we can write to our Member of Parliament and proper time will be given for him to consider our representations, and if he happens to agree with us, he will raise it on the Floor of the House and perhaps in Standing Committee."
It was an impertinence by the Government, who are still the historical holder of the flag of Unionism, to say to the people of Northern Ireland a week ago, "We shall extend the provisions of the Bill to Northern Ireland. We give you at most three days to consider the way in which the Bill will affect Northern Ireland." What chance has anyone who is not directly involved in politics to write to his Member of Parliament and explain, for instance, the special security aspects of Northern Ireland and to say whether he wishes the legislation to be extended to other activities, whether he wishes the legislation to be tightened or loosened in respect of Northern Ireland? That is the most offensive way in which to legislate for Northern Ireland.
I say that with great regret, because it is widely known that many Opposition Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland are coming to the view that the only proper future for Northern Ireland is to have some separate or devolved constitution. Those of us who wish to retain the union must be extremely careful to ensure that proper constitutional proprieties are always observed in respect of Northern Ireland.
This method of dealing with Northern Ireland is a disgrace. It has deprived the citizens of Northern Ireland of their proper rights. It is a manifestation of the most crass, arrogant English attitude towards Northern Ireland. Every hon. Member who has any sense of history and any sense of the union and of the great sacrifices made by Northern Ireland for the United Kingdom should vote with vigour against this disgraceful guillotine.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West

(Mr. Budgen) has given one good reason why we should oppose the guillotine this evening, but some of my hon. Friends may be in doubt as to what happened in Standing Committee and in Monday night's debate. There was not one single filibuster. We had a constructive debate on a lot of technical matters. Throughout the Committee, we made very quick and good progress, given the complexities of the legislation. I was under the impression that the guillotine was imposed only after deliberate filibustering by hon. Members trying to foul up the works, but in this case there was none of that.
Furthermore, I remember well that in Committee my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told us that firearms legislation depended on trust and co-operation between the shooting community and the police. We want to expedite the Bill to put it on the statute book as soon as possible, but the patience of the shooting community is being pushed to the limit by the Bill's provisions. If the shooting community can say, as it will be able to, that the House of Commons did not even discuss measures that affect it, its freedoms and its liberties, it will resent the Bill even more.
If we support the guillotine, we shall bitterly regret doing so. The Bill is pushing the patience of the shooting community a long way, and if we support the guillotine motion it will have a genuine grievance. That is why I shall vote against the motion this evening.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Let me deal briefly with a number of points that have come up. My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), in his glittering, amoral speech, expressed the hope that another place would not change the Bill. I share that hope, but we cannot be sure, so it is right to provide against that possibility. That is the purpose of paragraph 6 of the order which provides for a timetable if necessary in that event. It is opaque, it is difficult to constitute, but my right hon. Friend of all people should perhaps recognise that that is the traditional way of dealing with that particular problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has just made a powerful speech in favour of the union and gave that as a reason for voting against the guillotine. However, he seems to be under the misapprehension that the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland falls under the guillotine. This matter was discussed at some length on Monday night. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) rightly pointed out, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office did, as it were, come clean on that matter. Therefore, it is not subject to the guillotine.

Mr. Budgen: The point I made was that, if a constituent in Northern Ireland wishes to make representations to his Member of Parliament, he will not have sufficient time to do so and to receive any sort of answer from his Member of Parliament.

Mr. Hurd: I am not talking about the whole question of the application, because that was dealt with on Monday night. It is not an argument for voting against the timetable motion.

Mr. Budgen: rose——

Mr. Hurd: No, I shall not give way. My hon. Friend and I will continue to disagree on that point.

Mr. Dobson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although the new clause extending the Bill to Northern Ireland was debated earlier this week, a large number of amendments relating to Northern Ireland will be caught by the guillotine?

Mr. Hurd: The general principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was addressing is not touched on by the timetable motion and is not relevant to a vote on it.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend clear up one point for us? If Ministers knew that the Bill would be extended to Northern Ireland before the Committee concluded its consideration of the Bill, why was the Committee not told?

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office dealt with that specific point at some length on Monday night, as my hon. Friend will probably know. The question who received what letter when was exhaustively discussed that night.
Any firearms legislation is likely to be deeply controversial. Anyone who knows the history of the subject knows that to be true. On this occasion, the controversy on the Bill surfaced late. If we had rushed a Bill through using some emergency procedure in the autumn, we might have got it relatively easily. That is what we were urged to do by the Opposition and a large part of the press. We did not do that. We deliberately followed a normal procedure which allowed for reflection, criticism and change, and reflection, criticism and change is exactly what there has been.
All this time we were urged by the Opposition to move faster and further. I was accused of spending too much time with the gun lobby. I have all that history in mind when I hear accusations that there was some kind of knee-jerk reaction.
Since Second Reading, we have taken the view that certain pillars of the Bill had to be held to, and we have held to them. There are other matters on which we have been moved, and I congratulate my hon. Friends on their powers of persuasion. It was persuasion, because we could have removed at this stage clauses that were carried against us in Standing Committee. By and large, we have not done so. The result is a raft of Government amendments. The amendments are to a large extent the result of concessions, made and promised in Standing Committee, exacted by my hon. Friends. It is a little hard to press us to show flexibility and open-mindedness and then, when we do, to complain of the amendments tabled as a result.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend concede that the one aspect of the Bill which has been omitted is that concerning the availability of weapons to people with mental health problems? That point appears to have been ignored. The application form makes provision for self-certification, and applicants are asked to declare whether they have a mental health problem. However, the general practitioner is not asked to countersign. Should not an amendment be brought forward to cover that point?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department advises me that that matter will be raised at various stages in our discussions later, when my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce) will have an opportunity to intervene and to receive an answer.
In the meetings which my hon. Friend the Minister and I have had with our hon. Friends, they have emphasised three points on which they sought concessions. The first was the modification of the prohibition on self-loading rifles, with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in the van. The second concerned the buy-in procedure. The third related to the statutory advisory committee. We have done what my hon. Friend promised. We weighed up carefully whether concessions could be made in respect of self-loading rifles which would meet the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries without weakening a central pillar of the Bill.
For reasons which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already given, and which he will repeat this evening, we concluded that that concession could not be made. However, the buy-in scheme and the statutory committee have been conceded. If my hon. Friends knew with what pain and difficulty my hon. Friend and I shook those two plums from the tree, they would be a little more generous when we offer that fruit to them on a dish.

Mr. Higgins: As my right hon. Friend has failed to provide an amended financial memorandum to the Hill, now that the one provided on Second Reading has been overtaken by events, will he explain why it is that the compensation arrangements propose to ask for certification of what was paid for the weapon but to reimburse only 50 per cent?

Mr. Hurd: There is an amendment covering that point, and I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill [Money] (No. 2) resolution, which was carried on I March, after Second Reading, as a result of the concession in principle that was made on that aspect.
We are anxious to continue and to complete informed discussion——

Mr. Higgins: My right hon. Friend has not answered my question. He must not try to rush this through and brush matters aside in that way. He has not explained why it is that somebody with a receipt showing what he paid for the weapon should be compensated only to the extent of 50 per cent. of its value.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with that point later this evening. I thought that my right hon. Friend wished to refer to the point he raised when intervening originally, because it is that point with which I have dealt. I shall certainly give my right hon. Friend an answer to his other detailed point.

Mr. William Ross: rose——

Mr. Hurd: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Hon. Members: Give way!

Mr. Ross: There was considerable debate in Committee on the number of weapons that would be confiscated—the Home Secretary calls it compensation. Does the Home Secretary yet know how many of those weapons there are, and what will be the total cost, even on his miserly sums?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are debating the allocation of time motion.

Mr. Hurd: The best estimate that we have, I am advised, is 8,000 to 10,000 rifles.
We are anxious to continue, and to complete, in an informed way, the proceedings on the Bill. I do not need to state the background and the reasons for it, because they have been eloquently stated by two of my hon. Friends who are in a particularly good position to comment—my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). I do not need to labour or repeat their arguments. I hold those views strongly and believe that they amount to a powerful case for the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided:Ayes 278, Noes 142.

Division No. 327]
[9.15 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Couchman, James


Alexander, Richard
Cran, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Critchley, Julian


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Amos, Alan
Curry, David


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Devlin, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Dickens, Geoffrey


Atkins, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, David
Dover, Den


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Durant, Tony


Baldry, Tony
Emery, Sir Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Batiste, Spencer
Evennett, David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fallon, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Farr, Sir John


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Favell, Tony


Benyon, W.
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forman, Nigel


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forth, Eric


Boswell, Tim
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Franks, Cecil


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Freeman, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
French, Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Fry, Peter


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gardiner, George


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Browne, John (Winchester)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Buck, Sir Antony
Gorst, John


Burns, Simon
Gower, Sir Raymond


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Butcher, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butler, Chris
Gregory, Conal


Butterfill, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Grylls, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Cash, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hampson, Dr Keith


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hanley, Jeremy


Chapman, Sydney
Hannam, John


Chope, Christopher
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Haselhurst, Alan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hawkins, Christopher


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayward, Robert


Cope, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David





Heddle, John
Needham, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hill, James
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Holt, Richard
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Michael
Page, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Paice, James


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Pawsey, James


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Portillo, Michael


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Powell, William (Corby)


Irvine, Michael
Price, Sir David


Irving, Charles
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jack, Michael
Redwood, John


Janman, Tim
Renton, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Rhodes James, Robert


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Key, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rowe, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sayeed, Jonathan


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knox, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Ivan
Sims, Roger


Lee, John (Pendle)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Keith


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lilley, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stevens, Lewis


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stokes, John


McCrindle, Robert
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Sumberg, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Summerson, Hugo


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maclean, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Madel, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maples, John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tracey, Richard


Maude, Hon Francis
Tredinnick, David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Trotter, Neville


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Miller, Hal
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mills, Iain
Walden, George


Miscampbell, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Ward, John


Moate, Roger
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Warren, Kenneth


Moore, Rt Hon John
Watts, John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Wells, Bowen


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Wheeler, John


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Widdecombe, Ann


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wilkinson, John


Neale, Gerrard
Wilshire, David






Wolfson, Mark



Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Young, Sir George (Acton)





NOES


Allen, Graham
Howells, Geraint


Alton, David
Ingram, Adam


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Barron, Kevin
Kennedy, Charles


Battle, John
Lambie, David


Beckett, Margaret
Lamond, James


Beggs, Roy
Leighton, Ron


Bellingham, Henry
Livsey, Richard


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bermingham, Gerald
McAvoy, Thomas


Bidwell, Sydney
McCusker, Harold


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Macdonald, Calum A.


Boyes, Roland
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bradley, Keith
McLeish, Henry


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
McWilliam, John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Madden, Max


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Marek, Dr John


Buchan, Norman
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Martlew, Eric


Buckley, George J.
Maxton, John


Budgen, Nicholas
Meale, Alan


Callaghan, Jim
Michael, Alun


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Clay, Bob
Monro, Sir Hector


Clelland, David
Morgan, Rhodri


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cohen, Harry
Mowlam, Marjorie


Colvin, Michael
Mullin, Chris


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Murphy, Paul


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Nellist, Dave


Corbett, Robin
Patchett, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Pike, Peter L.


Cox, Tom
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Crowther, Stan
Prescott, John


Cryer, Bob
Quin, Ms Joyce


Cummings, John
Redmond, Martin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Richardson, Jo


Dalyell, Tam
Robertson, George


Darling, Alistair
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Rowlands, Ted


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Salmond, Alex


Dewar, Donald
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dixon, Don
Short, Clare


Dobson, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Douglas, Dick
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Eadie, Alexander
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Stott, Roger


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Strang, Gavin


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Flynn, Paul
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Turner, Dennis


Galbraith, Sam
Vaz, Keith


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wall, Pat


Gordon, Mildred
Wallace, James


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Walley, Joan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Grocott, Bruce
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Whitney, Ray


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wigley, Dafydd





Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Winnick, David



Winterton, Mrs Ann
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Martyn Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Firearms (Amendment) Bill

Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The remaining proceedings on Consideration and the proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(3) Standing Order No. 80 ( Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.

Dilatory motions

2 No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Motion under Standing Order No. 20: extra time

3.If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion.

Conclusion of proceedings

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing the proceedings on the Bill to a conclusion at the time required by this Order, Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule Mr. Speaker shall put only the question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not he interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Recommittal

5.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Supplemental orders

6. The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

Orders of the Day — Firearms (Amendment) Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.

New Clause 15

COMMITTEE TO REVIEW FIREARMS LEGISLATION

'The Home Secretary shall establish, within 12 months of the coming into force of this Act, a standing committee of no more than 15 persons, who shall elect their own chairman each year and whose members shall normally serve for no more than three years, which shall keep under review the operation of the Firearms Act 1968 and subsequent firearms legislation and which may make proposals for the amending of such Acts at time to time. The standing committee shall include representatives of the police, shooting interests, the gun trade and no more than two competent and qualified independent persons'.—[Mr. Corbett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 148.
Amendment No. 85, in clause 16, page 8, line 27, after 'Committee', insert
'of whom the chairman shall be a senior member of one of the major institutions of criminology or a senior member of the legal profession chosen after consultation with the appropriate professional bodies.'.
Amendment No. 84, in clause 16, page 8, line 28, leave out 'eight' and insert 'fifteen'.
Amendment No. 87, in clause 16, page 8, line 29, after 'State', insert
'to include at least one representative of the Police, the Home Office, the Military, and firearms users'.
Government amendments Nos. 149 and 150.
Amendment No. 90, in clause 16, page 8, line 40, at end insert
'(3A) The Secretary of State shall publish the agenda and minutes of all meetings of the firearms expert consultative committee.'.
Government amendment No. 151.
Amendment No. 137, in clause 16, page 8, line 41, leave out
'except in cases of special urgency.'.
Amendment No. 139, in clause 16, page 8, line 41, leave out 'special' and insert 'extreme'.
Amendment No. 138, in clause 16, page 8, line 41, leave out 'special'.
Amendment No. 81, in clause 16, page 8, line 44, at end insert
`(4A) The firearms expert consultative committee shall be empowered to call for submissions, evidence and figures concerning the administration of the principal and this Act from Chief Officers of Police.'.
Amendment No. 140, in clause 16, page 9, line 6, at end insert
`or the committee itself decide'.
Amendment No. 142, in clause 16, page 9, line 12, leave out subsection (7).
Government amendment No. 152.
Amendment No. 88, in clause 16, page 9, line 12, leave out 'five' and insert 'three'.
Amendment No. 141, in clause 16, page 9, line 12, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.
Amendment No. 89, in clause 16, page 9, line 13, at end insert
`(7A) The Committee shall be empowered to call in for advice experts or persons with specialist knowledge in any particular field as the committee thinks fit.'.

Mr. Corbett: It is an outrage that we should have to discuss important amendments and new clauses to the Bill against a timetable. However, that is what the Government have just delivered through its Whipping system, because they know that there is no natural majority on the Government Benches for many of the provisions of the Bill. The new clause and the amendments which go with it illustrate that point.
In a sentence, the amendments tabled by the Government to the clause in the Bill setting up a consultative committee have one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to neuter the powers of that consultative committee. The committee was imposed upon the Government, and, having been beaten in Standing Committee, they now move to ensure that the committee has no real powers and is confined in such a way that it stands little or no chance of earning the respect of those who shoot for leisure or as part of their job.
The Government have yet to understand—and I hope that they will—the hostility that this Bill has aroused among legitimate shooters. All of us who had the privilege of serving on the Committee have been overwhelmed, not just by the number of representations which we have had, but by the range of objections. Some of us on the Committee tried our best to respond to them.
There is the contentious area of the differing attitudes of chief constables towards those applying for firearm certificates. Again, that is something on which the consultative committee could properly give advice.
I was told today—and I hope that the Under-Secretary will say something about it later—that the chief constable for north Wales is refusing to renew firearms certificates for SLRs, and is issuing instead a piece of paper claiming to authorise the holder to keep the weapon until it is disposed of under the Bill. That anticipates the Bill passing into law. I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm that that action is now unlawful.
In some earlier cases refusals have led to the courts, where the alleged unreasonable behaviour of chief constables for refusing certificates has been rejected. It can perhaps be best summed up in this way:
We have seen over recent years a belief growing amongst shooters that certain senior police officers are hostile to the shooting community and are abusing their discretion to the extent that they are seen to be writing what amount to new laws themselves.
That is a serious criticism from the point of view of the police, the shooters, and relations between the police and the public.
Those are not the words of some wildcats intent on fomenting trouble between police and shooters or police and public. They are not even the judgments of a police consultative committee. These charges come from a body with which the Government should have a special affinity. It is called the Association of Conservative Shooters. That is the measure of the gap that the Government have torn between legitimate shooters and the police. It was one


reason why the Committee insisted on the setting up of a representative group of those concerned with firearms and their proper use to try to heal those wounds and to build and develop a new and more positive partnership. Shooters do not object to proper firearms control. However, they properly insist that such controls should be fair and workable and that the police have a matching interest in that.
What do the Government propose for the consultative committee? They want to put it in a straitjacket. They insist, in amendment No. 151, that its main role shall be narrow and be simply
to keep under review … the provisions
unless the Secretary of State "requests" the committee
to make proposals for amending
them.
However, the position is even worse than that and the gag is even more secure. Seemingly the committee can advise the Secretary of State on any other matters relating to those provisions only when asked to do so. I advise the Under-Secretary of State and the Secretary of State that, if the Government's amendments are passed tonight, no self-respecting person will serve on that committee under those confining terms of reference. No adult will volunteer for a "speak only when spoken to" role that does no more than reflect what went on in the nursery where the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary of State spent some of their formative years, and retained its bad habits.
What is at issue is the role of the committee. Seemingly the Government see it as just another collection of the great and the good, sipping their coffee and waiting for the Secretary of State's messenger to arrive with some trivial request on which they can leisurely pass their time. It is a born-again Home Office working party. We want—that is why there was this argument and decision in Committee—a thoroughly representative committee of all the interests—police, shooters of all kinds, experts in weapons technology and criminologists, as independent members. We want them to have unfettered powers to speak and to offer advice to the Secretary of State, especially—I stress this—when he has not asked for it.
Let it he understood that no one is asking, as the Minister has suggested, that the committee should have powers to veto. Those powers belong only to the Secretary of State, who is accountable to this House. We want a free-standing committee as much concerned with the provisions of the Bill and the way in which they work as with looking ahead and into other areas of firearms legislation. It cannot be effective if it is to be no more than a group. to monitor the effectiveness of the Bill. It must be able to wander more widely and to ask for submissions from whoever it feels can help, and its agendas and minutes should be published.
Although clarifying the committee's role, the Government amendments gag it in a vital manner. Unless specifically asked by the Home Secretary, the committee is forbidden from recommending changes in legislation. That lies at the heart of our objections because it shows that the Government do not trust the committee or the people whom they hope will serve on it.
The Government remove the direct representation of people with knowledge of or expertise in sport, recreation and competition shooting. It does little good to say they can he smuggled in under the terms of amendment No. 148, which refers to people with

knowledge and experience of … the possession, use or keeping of
firearms. That is no way to deal with this matter and it is no way in which properly to reflect the legitimate interests of those who use weapons for sport, recreation or competition. People who use weapons for those purposes deserve and demand direct representation as of right.
This is the first major revision of firearms legislation in 20 years. That makes it more important that the committee listens and learns from the experience of the implementation of that legislation and is able to say to the Secretary of State from time to time, and by its own decision, "This bit of the Bill is fine and is working, but you got this bit wrong. This is what you should now do." I thought that that was what democracy was supposed to be about. Unfortunately, the Government dislike the idea of the committee and they have gone out of their way to hamstring its work. In clause 16(4) the Secretary of State even gives himself a loophole to avoid consulting the committee by saying that that need not be done when there is "special urgency". What does that mean? What is likely to happen with such hidden suddenness that the Secretary of State needs to rush to the Chamber to propose another class of weapon to be added to the banned list behind the backs of the members of the committee?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Gentleman is criticising the terms of clause 16(4) as they stand. He will remember that it is not a Government provision. He will note that amendment No. 151 seeks to delete the provision that he is criticising and to replace it with another.

Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for responding in that way. Those outside the House are not able to follow the ins and outs of the amendments in the same way as ourselves. I wanted him to say what he has said, and I am grateful to him for having made the position clear.
The nub of the matter is that the Committee will not be able to propose changes in firearms legislation unless and until the Secretary of State requests it to do so. That should not be acceptable to anyone, and it gives me no pleasure to repeat that it is my belief that no adult will agree or volunteer to serve on a committee that will be hamstrung and will be no more and no less than the Secretary of State's poodle.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I have a high regard for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), but his criticisms of the Government's amendments are devoid of truth. There is no intention of emasculating the consultative committee. In many respects we have greatly improved the clause which was agreed to in Committee. It is no secret that I on behalf of the Government strongly opposed a statutory consultative committee. I was in favour instead of a consultative committee. The Government were beaten in Committee and we have accepted the defeat with good grace. We have tabled amendments that will meet a long-standing desire on the part of the shooting community for a statutory consultative committee. As it considers the terms of the Government amendments, I think that it will understand and accept that it meets its legitimate desires.
I am encouraged by the constructive approach of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) to the statutory consultative committee. I refer him and the House to the passage in which he said:
If the Minister feels that it needs to be drafted in a different way, we are more flexible than he has been from time to time, and I shall be glad to change anything that might be required, except on the issue of whether it is statutory or not. Advisory committees get us nowhere in this world, we need a statutory one."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F; 10 March 1988, c. 377.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, who spoke with great eloquence during the debate, laid down one essential condition—that the committee should be statutory—and we have met it. He made it plain that he had no objections to other significant changes, and I am grateful to him for his constructive approach. I look forward to hearing his comments, but it would be a pity if they showed a marked departure from the approach that he so generously adopted in Committee.

Sir Hector Monro: One would have expected my hon. Friend not to devalue the committee, but to keep its original strength and content. Instead, one finds the truncated and emaciated rubbish that he has put in now.

Mr. Hogg: We shall now examine the detail of the committee. I hope that my hon. Friend will concede—certainly the shooting community will—that what we have done is a substantial improvement on what was passed in Committee.
The qualifications for membership are much the same in the Government amendments as they were in clause 16. The hon. Member for Erdington complained that there was no specific reference to people involved in sport, recreation and competition, but they are subsumed within the description of those having expertise in
possession, use or keeping of, or transactions in, firearms".
People who have experience in the possession, use and keeping of firearms are those who use them for a variety of purposes, such as sport, competition and recreation. Clause 16 made no provision, for example, for those who happen to like collecting guns because they are collectors. Nor did it make much provision for museum experts or refer specifically to those who deal with firearms on a commercial basis. We have tried to devise a formula that encompasses within the criteria for membership every interest group that is legitimately represented. Those whose expertise is in shooting, recreation and competition are certainly among those whom I would expect to see on the consultative committee.
There is one other great advantage that I hope my hon. Friend will be the first to concede—the increased number. His was a committee of no fewer than five and no more than eight. If he could have only eight he would find it difficult to include all those whom he wanted to include. We have enlarged the committee. We propose that the membership should be not fewer than 12. The object of the extension is to ensure that all the legitimate interests about which my hon. Friends are concerned find expression on

the statutory consultative committee, along with representatives of the police service, the forensic laboratories and so on. I suggest that the Government amendments are clearly to be preferred on these grounds.
I come now to the second major issue—the purpose and functions of the statutory committee. The Government have greatly improved the terms of reference and remit of the committee. In clause 16 the committee had essentially only two functions. One was to be consulted before the Secretary of State did anything about the application and implementation of the principal Act. That was a right to be consulted, no more. It was not a right to make representations, to report to Parliament or to make suggestions.
Secondly, under clause 5 the committee has a right to publish a code of practice. I shall return to that in a moment. It does not have a right to keep legislation, its implementation and administration under constant review, to make representations for its improvement or to make an annual report to Parliament. In each of those regards our amendments achieve just that. I suggest that we have greatly improved the functions of the committee.
Amendment No. 151 states:
It shall be the function of the committee—
(a) to keep under review the workings of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above"—
which is a reference to the relevant legislation—
and to make to the Secretary of State such recommendations as the committee may from time to time think necessary for the improvement of the working of those provisions.
Thus, the committee is empowered to do exactly what the shooting lobby has long asked for a statutory committee to have power to do. It is associated with an express power to present to Parliament each year an annual report. That is a manifest improvement on anything that appears in clause 16.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Home Secretary will have an obligation to consult the committee?

Mr. Hogg: No, the Secretary of State does not have an obligation to consult, because clause 16(4) is being deleted. But the converse is true: the committee has a mandatory duty to keep the legislation, its implementation and administration under review. It has a duty and a right to make representations and recommendations for approval, and it has a duty and a right to lay an annual report before Parliament. That is infinitely better than a loose commitment to consult, which in the end is meaningless.

Mr. Corbett: I readily concede that these amendments improve what was done in Committee, but we are still left with paragraphs (b) and (c) of amendment No. 151. The committee can make proposals for amending legislation only if requested to do so by the Secretary of State, and it can advise the Secretary of State only on any other matter relating to those provisions which he may refer to it. In other words, it will be a kept committee which can speak only when it is spoken to.

Mr. Hogg: No. I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman simply has not followed what I have been saying. It may be my fault and I am prepared to apologise if it is. He is wrong. I have made it plain on two separate occasions that the function of the committee is to keep the implementation and administration of existing and new


legislation under review, to make recommendations for its improvement and to make an annual report to Parliament. That is an enormous step forward, and it is different in kind from saying, "Incidentally, we recommend that clause 14 of a particular Bill should be drafted in different language," which is a more specific point.
The committee is there to make representations and recommendations on how gun law can be improved. That is mandatory and is its duty and right. It can do that in its annual report or specifically to the Secretary of State. Under the amendments, the Secretary of State would feel that the consultative committee had a particular role to play on what would then be a fairly narrow issue. Therefore, it has a broad reviewing role together with the power, which the Secretary of State would greatly appreciate, to advise on specific points put to it.
I appreciate that my hon. Friends may say, "Why has subsection (4) been struck out?" The answer is twofold. First, the right to be consulted adds up to nothing unless it is associated with positive rights and duties, which I have mentioned. It is also a recipe for delay and bureaucracy and it undermines the constitutional relationship between the Executive and Parliament. It would be nonsensical, because it would mean that the Secretary of State would have to consult on any of the decisions that he has to take under the firearms legislation; for example, whether to approve a Home Office approved club, to issue a section 5 certificate, or to issue a museum licence. One does not put such matters to a consultative committee. They are the day-to-day business of the Executive.
The second matter about which, as I well understand, my hon. Friends are upset is the code of practice. They believe that the consultative committee should publish a code of practice relevant to legal proceedings. I have not heard of many consultative committees, which by their nature are accountable to no one, which can publish documents that have a direct impact on the way that courts conduct civil and criminal cases. That is offensive in principle. It is also nonsensical, because the advice on the implementation of firearms legislation is contained in the rules and the memorandum of guidance. What happens if there is incompatibility between the memorandum of guidance and the code of practice? It becomes nonsense.
We have met a legitimate desire of the shooting community. We have given them a statutory committee for which they have long asked. We have framed it in such a way that it has a duty and a right constantly to review the implementation and administration of firearms legislation and to make recommendations for its improvement. That is a huge step forward for the shooting community. It is better than anything in clause 16, and on that basis I commend the Government amendment to the House.

Sir Charles Morrison: My hon. Friends who were responsible, in Committee, for persuading a majority of Committee members to introduce clause 16 into the Bill should be congratulated on what they did because they have achieved something that has been the objective for many years of a great number of people concerned with firearms. The Government should be congratulated on at last accepting that a statutory firearms consultative committee is necessary.
However, I am not quite certain, as the committee has now been set up, why my hon. Friends in Committee and now the Government in amendment No. 152 intend to give the committee a limited life. I cannot help thinking that

rather more permanence written into the Bill would provide greater confidence on the part of all those people involved with firearms. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will comment on that.
The Government are right to try to amend clause 16 to the effect that the committee should consist of no fewer than 12 persons in addition to the chairman. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that, if all interests are to be covered, it would have been difficult for that to happen under the provisions of clause 16.
However, I do not understand why, having increased the membership of the committee to a minimum of 12, my hon. Friend decides that it is right to cut out sport, recreation and competition membership. He has argued in amendment No. 148 that, it is possible for the Home Secretary to include every interest group in the membership of the committee, but, if amendment No. 148 is passed, the phrase "every interest group" will be within the judgment of the Home Secretary of the day. There is no guarantee that every Home Secretary will be as wise, sensible or broadminded as my right hon. Friend the current Home Secretary.

Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that if, perish the thought and God forbid, we had a Home Secretary who believed that it was wrong for anyone to use a weapon—a shotgun or whatever—for sport, vermin control or game shooting, he could decide that they should not sit on the statutory committee? That is why it would be so dangerous to remove that subsection.

10 pm

Sir Charles Morrison: I accept my hon. Friend's point, which I was about to cover. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility, as far as I can see, for considerations of sport, recreation and competition to be outside the limitations of the consideration of the consultative committee. It is very important that representatives of sport, recreation and competition should be referred to specifically in the committee so that people who use firearms for sport, recreation and competition can feel completely confident that the consultative committee will be able to assess, advise on and judge their affairs.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give further thought to that. I appreciate that he may not be able to give an undertaking tonight, but I hope that at least he will tell us that the matter will be reconsidered in another place.

Sir Hector Monro: The Minister's passionate speech tonight must mean that he has relatives called Houdini or Paul Daniels. He was passionately against the statutory committee in Standing Committee, yet tonight he argued for it as if it was his long-lost friend that he was welcoming from central Africa. He appeared desperately keen to have the committee.
I will refer to the Official Report of the Standing Committee, to which my hon. Friend the Minister likes to refer when that helps him. My hon. Friend said:
I am … positively against a statutory body … I am riot in favour of a statutory committee—I am not in favour of quangos—I am not in favour of involved terms of reference, rules as to appointment, powers on pay and such matters."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 10 March 1988; c. 384.]


No one argued more strongly against the statutory committee than my hon. Friend the Minister. However, the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in his reply to the guillotine motion, both took credit for setting up the statutory committee. Previously it appeared as if such a committee would be established only over the Minister's dead body. The way in which my hon. Friend tried to take credit for something that he had bitterly opposed was truly astonishing.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was taking credit—I hope that he will be given credit for this—for responding to the criticism of our position as expressed in Committee. We were beaten in Committee. We recognised that and we have come forward with proposals to respond positively to what the Committee wanted.

Sir Hector Monro: It is all very well to say that now, but my hon. Friend the Minister did not put it that way in Committee. We are now watching the small print very closely.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) on the issue of writing in sport, recreation and competition as responsibilities of the statutory committee. I cannot take the gamble that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might appoint someone from those areas to the committee unless they are specifically mentioned in the legislation.
The whole history of this matter has shown the lack of consultation by my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary over this legislation. We are talking about an advisory committee which already exists in the form of the British Shooting Sports Council, made up of representatives from the governing bodies of shooting sports in this country. Yet the Minister went ahead and announced the main thrust of the legislation without consulting the advisory committee that had been set up to help the Home Office.
I find it truly astonishing that, when the chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council, Lord Swansea—one of the best shots in the British Isles—wrote to the Home Secretary immediately after the disaster at Hungerford and said that he had at his finger tips all the governing bodies which wished to help, the Home Secretary did not consult them before he made his speech at Torquay to the police officers. That was a fatal flaw in the progress made by the Government when introducing the legislation.
If the Home Secretary and the Minister are not prepared to consult the governing bodies of the sport which are in a unique position to advise the Government, how can we be certain that the Government will consult them in future unless we include in the consultative committee the things that matter?

Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman is well known throughout the House and to Ministers as a person with a keen interest in shooting. In late August and September, did he happen to bump into anyone from the Home Office in the Corridor who said, "Look Hector, old boy, we are thinking about introducing a Bill. Would you like to give us some advice?" Was he approached by the Home Secretary or any of his other right hon. and hon. Friends?

Sir Hector Monro: I am president of the National Small-Bore Rifle Association, vice-president of the National Rifle Association and in touch with other organisations. During the summer, those organisations, together with Lord Swansea, offered help, but I was never asked for my advice on how best to proceed, despite my parliamentary and ministerial experience.

Mr. Corbett: As long ago as last July, the International Shooting Sportsperson Liaison Committee offered to meet officials of the Home Office. It received a dusty answer. When that offer was repeated in the past couple of days, the Committee was told that there was no way in which it would ever see the Home Secretary.

Sir Hector Monro: That shows that the Home Office appears to have a built-in opposition to consulting anyone who might give it wise advice. I am afraid that Ministers must carry the can for failing to react to offers of consultation. That is why we are so concerned that the new clause, which receives all-party support, has been severely tampered with by my hon. Friend's amendments Nos. 148 and 151.
My hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) and for Devizes have already said that the specific interests of sport, recreation and competition are important. They have also said that if other Home Secretaries use the wording contained in the Minister's amendments they could appoint to the consultative committee people with astonishing special interests, which might not be the interests of the shooting world.
The whole idea of the consultative committee is a committee of experts—those who know the weapons and the shooting sports. I do not believe that it is a committee on which other voluntary organisations that are opposed to such sports should sit. It would be a technical committee of skilled knowledge.
In Committee I was pleased that we had the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), who has great experience in police matters; the police are included in the new clause.

Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds supports the consultative committee is that he believes strongly in the uniform implementation of firearms legislation? The consultative committee would issue a code of practice that could be quoted in the courts. That would aid the uniform implementation of the legislation throughout the country and someone in Norfolk would receive the same treatment as someone in Tayside. Surely that is crucial.

Sir Hector Monro: We frequently discuss uniformity. I hope that the Minister will respond, particularly as police forces throughout the United Kingdom seem to be acting as if the Bill were law, although there are a great many stages before that happens. Chief constables in different parts of the country are interpreting the law in different ways and producing different forms, and, as we heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), they are becoming very restrictive about pistols, which are excluded from the Bill. If we do not have self-loading pistols, we can say goodbye to target shooting with pistols in this country.

Mr. William Ross: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but was not the question of uniformity raised in 1984 by the working party on the administration of the Firearms Act? Is it not a fact that the Home Secretary has sat on that recommendation from that day to this? If the Government had acted upon that recommendation, we would have had uniformity throughout the country in dealing with firearms applications. If we had had that uniformity in detail, and if the recommendations of the body referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) had been followed, Ryan might not have slipped through the net.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If uniformity had existed we would not have needed this legislation at all. We are always asking for detailed statistics about armed crime and the use of rifles, but the Home Office has not yet produced them.
Other hon. Members wish to speak in this truncated debate, so I shall make only one more point and I shall not labour it. Last week we were given the assurance that the statutory committee would remain in the Bill as it was, but the following day that assurance was reversed by Government amendment. That was not the way to treat colleagues in the House. My hon. Friend the Minister must be prepared to amend the Bill in another place, bringing in specific groups such as sport, recreation and competition, and bringing back codes of practice. If we cannot have uniform codes of practice throughout the country for every aspect of sport and recreation, we shall never have a really constructive approach to firearms control in this country.
The hon. Member for Erdington made a splendid speech proposing his new clause and, like him, whatever the Minister said, I still have grave doubts that the Home Secretary will go to the statutory committee frequently enough and ask for its advice. The boot has to be on the other foot. That highly technical and specific committee must be able to look at legislation continually and tell the Home Secretary what he should do about it. That is the only way to proceed. I am very disappointed with the Minister's answer. He has let us down several times on what he said in Standing Committee. If he does not accept the will of the Standing Committee more frequently, I wonder what democratic legislation is all about.

Mr. William Ross: I intervene briefly in the debate to draw attention to the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and me. If the Minister looked carefully at our proposals about the consultative committee, he would see that his proposals would be vastly improved by accepting them. It may well be that the Home Office does not want the proposals to be improved as that might make life difficult for it because the expert advice would be frequent and solid. It seems to want to avoid that at all costs.
The Minister will see that we ask for the chairman to be a senior member of one of the major institutes of criminology or a senior member of the legal profession. That is an excellent idea as such an individual would add greatly to the deliberations of any consultative committee. I must confess that I was very pleased that the Home Secretary has decided that the committee should consist of the chairman and 12 other people, making a total of 13. That is a considerable improvement. My right hon. Friend

and I preferred 15, but we shall not quibble over the extra two. However, perhaps he would be minded to give us the 15, which would give us a slightly wider spread.
We should have representatives not only of the police, the Home Office and firearms users, but of the military. The one outstanding feature of our debates has been the sheer lack of expert technical knowledge which seems to be available only in military circles. If the Home Office would make use of serving military officers or ex-military officers with expertise in this area, it would be a great improvement.
10.15 pm
Above all, we need to know what the committee is talking about. There is no point in having a nice cosy little set-up of chief police officers, the Home Office and one or two other do-gooders unless the shooting world in general knows what is being discussed. For all that the shooting world knows, these committees might never meet unlless the agendas and minutes of all the meetings are published. I commend that to the Minister.
Government amendment No. 148 refers to
the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the principal Act, the Firearms Act 1982 and this Act.
In our amendment No. 81 we should like to go further than that. We ask that
The firearms expert consultative committee shall be empowered to call for submissions, evidence and figures concerning the administration of the principal and this Act from Chief Officers of Police.
We are lacking in our knowledge of detail, and if those figures could be extracted from the chief officers of police, it would be a great help to us all.
Amendment No. 89 says:
The Committee shall be empowered to call in for advice experts or persons with specialist knowledge in any particular field as the committee thinks fit.
That goes rather further in seeking expert advice than the Government want to go. The Government should give that careful consideration and be sensible for once and accept what is said. If that is done, the committee will be vastly improved and will serve the shooting interests rather than those who are trying to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Ronisey and Waterside): The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) ably moved new clause 15. He made the case for the expert consultative committee so convincingly that he really destroyed the argument for his own review committee, which will be no more than a talking shop when what we need is a committee with some statutory teeth. What he was proposing was not at all what the shooting fraternity would like to see.
Other amendments in the group deal with the firearms expert consultative committee, established by Standing Committee F with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), speaking, presumably, with the authority of the police. What the Government are now proposing will largely emasculate the powers that clause 16 gives the committee.
First, it changes the committee's composition. It increases its number from five to eight members to not fewer than 12 members and a chairman. That may seem to be of little consequence. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made the point that the increase


was a good thing because it brought more people on to the committee and therefore more of the vested interests would have an opportunity to participate.
The problem is, as most people who have experience of committees will know, the bigger committees are the less they achieve. They tend to become talking shops. If the membership of a committee is so wide as to permit every organisation to push and shove and get on to it, its individual members, rather than being representatives with a broad experience of shooting, will tend to become delegates for their own narrow interests and will take up stances on that basis which will completely destroy what such a consultative committee is all about.
To increase the membership to a minimum of 12 plus the chairman—and in time it could be much larger—might achieve precisely what I believe is the Government's real intention, which is to pay lip service to the idea of the committee but eventually to kill it off because it will become nothing more than an ineffective talking shop.
My hon. Friends have already spoken about the need for people to serve on the committee who have knowledge of sporting, recreational and competition shooting. It is highly regrettable that the Government have left out that wide group.
Government amendment No. 151 is crucial because it greatly reduces the committee's powers as enshrined in clause 16. It removes the code of practice which Standing Committee F felt was extremely important, and which is essential to effective administration and to ensuring the consistency and uniform administration of firearms legislation among police authorities. Uniformity has been mentioned by many hon. Members. One example of why it is important is that there exists considerable inconsistency in application forms. The Opposition moved new clause 16 on Monday evening, but my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State did not reply to their arguments for a uniform application form in respect of firearms and shotguns.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I reminded the House that there were already powers under the rules to prescribe a common form of application. In fact, a common form of application is now prescribed in the rules and is commonplace throughout the country.

Mr. Colvin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply, because that would certainly be an improvement on what we have at present.

Mr. Hogg: It is what we have at present.

Mr. Colvin: In that case, why is it that the following is the case. Schedule 1 to the Firearm Rules 1969 sets out the rules for a form of application for the granting of a shotgun certificate. It calls for a counter signature from a person who shall be a Member of Parliament, a justice of the peace, a minister of religion, a doctor, a lawyer, a bank officer or a person of similar standing. However, schedule 4 to the same rules provides that the form of application for the grant, renewal or variation of a firearm certificate requires no counter signature whatsoever. Is that not rather strange?

Mr. Hogg: It might help my hon. Friend if he will refer to rule 3 of the Firearm Rules 1969:

Subject to Rule 7 of these Rules, an application for the grant of a shot gun certificate shall be in the form set out in Part 1 of Schedule 1 to these Rules.
If my hon. Friend will read schedule 1, he will find the appropriate form printed there.

Mr. Colvin: Can my hon. Friend say whether applications for firearm certificates will need to be countersigned, as applications for shotgun certificates have to be countersigned, by a responsible person?

Mr. Hogg: indicated dissent.

Mr. Colvin: It appears that he cannot do so.

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) is unknowingly enabling me to clear up some misunderstanding. The standard application form to which new clause 16 refers was meant to relate to a common form of documentation for use by all police forces and not to the form which the applicant originally completes. The standard application form is that which would be used to ask additional questions.

Mr. Colvin: That was a useful intervention. I think that we are at one on this. We want uniformity, but we also want consistency between applications for shotgun certificates and those for firearm certificates. I do not think that the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary provides the answer.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, may I raise another that bears on it? Would it not be much better if the referee were asked to give his view that the person was suitable to hold the certificate? As I have said to the Under-Secretary before, this point was made to me by a parson. At present referees are asked to certify only that the facts on the face of the application are true; they are not asked to certify that in their view the person is a suitable applicant. The parson told me that the facts were true and that he therefore felt obliged to sign the application, although in his view the applicant was not suitable for reasons of temperament.

Mr. Colvin: My hon. Friend makes a valid point which I hope the Minister will take on board and consider seriously.
The new clause and amendments allow the consultative committee to keep firearms legislation under review and to make recommendations to the Home Secretary from time to time. The committee can make proposals for changing the law or tackling other matters only if asked to do so by the Home Secretary. The new clause removes all obligation from the Home Secretary to consult the committee unless he happens to want to do so, which I think greatly weakens clause 16(4).
The amendments would leave us with a large, flabby committee, like a perpetual working party, examining the way in which the legislation is working but having no power of independent action, no code of practice, no relevance to the courts and no point of reference from all those engaged in firearms control. The committee can and will be ignored by Home Office officials. It will be obliged to submit an annual report to Parliament which is bound to be of limited value. After five years it will lapse, and it is very unlikely, in view of its unwieldy nature, that it will ever come into being again. That is why we strongly resent what the Government are trying to do to emasculate what was a very good proposal in Committee.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to think very seriously about what is being said this evening, and to reconsider his stand before the Bill is discussed in the other place.

Sir John Farr: I welcome the proposal for a consultative committee. As some of my hon. Friends have said, it has been considered at the top level in Home Office circles for many years. Strong and persuasive arguments have always been put forward for a statutory firearms committee, yet the Home Office has always found good reasons for not putting the proposal into effect. I do not regard this as a concession by my hon. Friend the Minister. I would describe it as a wise adjustment of his position. What would the consultative committee do in the future that has not been done in the past 20 years or so? That is the basis on which we should decide whether the committee will be useful.
It is exactly 20 years since the Firearms Act 1968 was passed. That, of course, was only a consolidating Act. It is 30 years since we had any major firearms legislation, good or bad. In that time there has been no real need for massive legislation, although from time to time it has been said that a consultative committee should be set up to see what people think about new legislation. There has been effective consultation between the British Shooting Sports Council—and the Long Room committee which preceded it—and representatives of the Home Office at all levels. For 20 years they got the answer right without a high-powered committee.
If a member of the NRA, the NSRA, the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association or any of the other shooting bodies had a particular grievance, he knew that it would be considered right away by the Home Office—generally by the relevant very helpful officials. Therefore, while I agree that my hon. Friend the Minister has probably made a wise political concession by agreeing to the establishment of a consultative committee, I do not see how we have lost in the past 20 years by not having one.
10.30 pm
People may say, "If we had had a consultative committee 20 years ago we should not have had the fiasco of the 1973 Green Paper." That is probably true, and that Green Paper certainly was a fiasco. The then Conservative Administration came away with egg on their face and on firearms matters we have never really recovered from that. It could be argued that had we had a consultative committee, with all its representatives, no Conservative or Labour Government would ever have been so foolish as to present such a document.
There is another respect in which such a consultative committee might have helped matters over the past 15 or 20 years. The members of such a committee would have made strong representations to the Home Secretary so that by now we should enjoy what I call a six-year certificate for shotguns and firearms. Not so long ago, a previous Home Secretary was in favour of a six-year certificate for shotguns. I feel that if a statutory standing committee had been in place then it would probably have proceeded with that Home Secretary and established a six-year certificate. On the whole, I welcome the idea of a committee because I think that the provision could help to frame future firearms legislation which may be round the corner and which we cannot foresee.
There is one omission from clause 16, which the Home Office is to amend. I have had a look at the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and they seem to improve matters. As drafted, the clause omits a reference to dealers. It concentrates almost entirely on the users of firearms and the effect of firearms legislation on them. Today the position of dealers is becoming more important. Their position is one of great responsibility. In many cases they hold large stocks of weapons, sometimes at great risk. The firearms consultative committee would be a better committee if the position of dealers could be considered from time to time.
A little while ago I mentioned Alan Bray of Hinckley, a firearms dealer in Leicestershire, who was attacked by robbers masquerading as policemen. They got into his firearms shop, doused him with petrol and set him alight. They stole hundreds of weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition. The incident was had for Alan Bray, who will never be the same again. He represented Britain at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, shooting with a handgun. He is lucky to be alive, but a far greater risk was created by the amount of arms that went underground and became available for every criminal to use.
I support amendment No. 148. I should like dealers and suppliers to be covered too, however, so that we can ensure that they are first-class people and have the most sophisticated protective devices to guard their weapons, ammunition and premises 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: The establishment of a statutory consultative committee is a great improvement. I was therefore interested to see how the Government would deal with the idea, and I was impressed, as were others of my hon. Friends, by the fervour of the conversion of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
I am worried about the failure to include on the consultative committee sport, recreation and competition interests. I shall not go into the matter in detail because Of the lack of time and because many others have already said how important it is that those two interests should be included. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Minister said about amendment No. 148. He said that it was not necessary to specify such groups, but it is necessary, because they are important interests. They are the most directly concerned, and the Home Secretary can get the best advice from them.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that we should not worry that such interests would not be included by the amendment, but he gave the show away when he said that he would expect to see those interests represented on the consultative committee. It worries me that he only expects. It is not good enough simply to expect to see people on the committee. Such interests should be specified in the Bill. I beg my hon. Friend to think again and to include those special interests. They are the most relevant ones and their inclusion should not be left to chance.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I know that the House wishes to proceed, I think to a Division, so I shall be brief.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) mentioned the limited life of the committee. The explanation for that lies partly in the fact that my hon. Friends in the Standing Committee suggested it. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E.


Griffiths) said that he was converted to the prospect of a statutory consultative committee because it had a limited life but there was a possibility of its continuation. We have no reason to depart in that respect from what was decided in Committee.
Several hon. Members have understandably spoken about people involved in sport, recreation and competition. I told the House earlier, and it is absolutely right, that those interest groups are covered in paragraph (a) of amendment No. 148, they being persons who have expertise in
the possession, use or keeping of, or transactions in, firearms".
The paragraph is drawn widely to catch all the interest groups. The problem with clause 16 is that it positively excludes lots of people who have a legitimate interest, such as collectors, museums and dealers, to name but three.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that, with a committee of five—and that is the minimum—and no more than eight, there is always a risk, under the clause 16 procedure, of excluding precisely those interest groups which my hon. Friend would like to include. One of the advantages of an enlarged committee is that it is possible to accommodate a much wider range of people.
I do not want to fall out on this issue——

Mr. Frank Cook: Settler.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Member is quite right: I am a settler. I had always thought that those who are engaged in sport, recreation and competition would be on the consultative committee, because they are the people who are involved in
the possession, use or keeping of, or transactions in, firearms.
The problem is one of listing. Once we start listing everybody, what happens if we overlook somebody? My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has overlooked museums, collectors and dealers, yet they are legitimate interests to have on the statutory committee.
Without commitment and without undertaking—I give no guarantee and I give no promise—I will see if it would be right specifically to identify in the clause sport, recreation and competition. If we so decide that, it can be dealt with in another place. However, I am hostile to specific listing, because of those groups that it will exclude if we do not include everybody.

Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend has it in reverse. Our new clause 16 has covered the use of firearms, security and safekeeping and weapon technology—which cover the museums, collectors and dealers he has in mind—but his clause does not include sport and recreation. I think he has it inside out.

Mr. Hogg: I really do not agree with that. We will have to make a judgment about this, but I have studied the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) carefully and I do not believe that any of the language he uses is apt to include collectors, museums or dealers. I make the point also that it does not include farmers.
There is a problem with specific listing. I am prepared to look at it again, but I am not giving a commitment that

we will include it, because I am fearful of excluding people if we go in for the list approach. That is why I prefer the generic approach.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) that the Government amendments do not emasculate the powers of the statutory committee; they enhance them in a number of important respects. At the moment, the consultative committee, under new clause 16, would have the right to publish a code of practice and a right to be consulted. Nothing looser could be imagined, whereas under the Government amendment there is a positive right and duty to review existing legislation, its implementation and administration, to make recommendations for its improvement and to report to Parliament. It greatly enhances the powers of the committee.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that on Monday, at a rather inconvenient time—I know that he was not always able to be here, because he has other business to attend to—we debated new clause 5, when precisely this kind of issue was discussed. In new clause 5 we have introduced the concept that a person should verify on the application form that he—the person making the verification—knows no reason why the applicant should not have a firearm. I use loose language and not the technical language. We felt that we could do it that way rather than ask people to make the positive assertion that someone was fit to hold a firearm.
On that happy note, I finish by inviting the House not to approve the new clause but to accept the Government amendments.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 43, Noes 201.

Division No. 328]
[10.44 pm


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Michael, Alun


Barron, Kevin
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Battle, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Beggs, Roy
Morgan, Rhodri


Bermingham, Gerald
Morley, Elliott


Buckley, George J.
Murphy, Paul


Callaghan, Jim
Patchett, Terry


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Pike, Peter L.


Corbett, Robin
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Prescott, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Dalyell, Tam
Salmond, Alex


Dewar, Donald
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Eastham, Ken
Spearing, Nigel


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Vaz, Keith


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Walley, Joan


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wigley, Dafydd


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)



Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Alan Meale.


McCusker, Harold



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baldry, Tony


Allason, Rupert
Batiste, Spencer


Alton, David
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Amess, David
Bendall, Vivian


Amos, Alan
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arbuthnot, James
Benyon, W.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Boswell, Tim






Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Kirkhope, Timothy


Brazier, Julian
Knapman, Roger


Bright, Graham
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Knowles, Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Knox, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Lang, Ian


Buck, Sir Antony
Lawrence, Ivan


Burt, Alistair
Lee, John (Pendle)


Butler, Chris
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lightbown, David


Carrington, Matthew
Lilley, Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Livsey, Richard


Cash, William
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lord, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Cope, John
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Cran, James
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Maclean, David


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Day, Stephen
Madel, David


Devlin, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Mans, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dover, Den
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dunn, Bob
Maude, Hon Francis


Emery, Sir Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Evennett, David
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Farr, Sir John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'1 &amp; Bute)


Favell, Tony
Miller, Hal


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mills, Iain


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Forman, Nigel
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Morrison, Hon Sir Charles


Forth, Eric
Moss, Malcolm


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Franks, Cecil
Neubert, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


French, Douglas
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gorst, John
Page, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Paice, James


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Gregory, Conal
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Ground, Patrick
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Portillo, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Powell, William (Corby)


Hannam, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Renton, Tim


Harris, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Hawkins, Christopher
Riddick, Graham


Hayward, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Heddle, John
Rowe, Andrew


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Richard


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Howells, Geraint
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Speed, Keith


Irvine, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Irving, Charles
Stern, Michael


Jack, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Jessel, Toby
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Kennedy, Charles
Temple-Morris, Peter


Key, Robert
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)





Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wells, Bowen


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wheeler, John


Tracey, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Tredinnick, David
Wilkinson, John


Trotter, Neville
Wilshire, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wood, Timothy


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walden, George



Wallace, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tony Durant.


Warren, Kenneth



Watts, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Do I understand that the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) wants a Division on new clause 16?

Mr. Frank Cook: Yes, Sir.

New Clause 16

STANDARD FORM OF FIREARMS CERTIFICATES

'The Home Secretary shall authorise the use of a standard application form by all police authorities in respect of the grant or renewal of firearms certificates after consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation and representatives of shooting interests within 12 months of the coming into force of this Act.—[Mr. Frank Cook.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 191.

Division No. 329]
[10 57


AYES


Alton, David
McWilliam, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Michael, Alun


Battle, John
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Beggs, Roy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Bellingham, Henry
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Bermingham, Gerald
Morgan, Rhodri


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Morley, Elliott


Buckley, George J.
Murphy, Paul


Callaghan, Jim
Patchett, Terry


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Pike, Peter L.


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Corbett, Robin
Prescott, John


Cryer, Bob
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Salmond, Alex


Dalyell, Tam
Skinner, Dennis


Dewar, Donald
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Dixon, Don
Spearing, Nigel


Eastham, Ken
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Vaz, Keith


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Wallace, James


Golding, Mrs LLin
Walley, Joan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Howells, Geraint
Wiggin, Jerry


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Kennedy, Charles



Livsey, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


McCusker, Harold
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Alan Meale


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Allason, Rupert
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Amos, Alan
Batiste, Spencer


Anderson, Donald
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Arbuthnot, James
Bendall, Vivian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Benyon, W.






Bevan, David Gilroy
Franks, Cecil


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freeman, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
French, Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gorst, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brazier, Julian
Greenway, John (Ftyedale)


Bright, Graham
Gregory, Conal


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Ground, Patrick


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hanley, Jeremy


Buck, Sir Antony
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butler, Chris
Hawkins, Christopher


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayward, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Heddle, John


Cash, William
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Cope, John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cran, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Devlin, Tim
Irvine, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Irving, Charles


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jack, Michael


Dover, Den
Jessel, Toby


Dunn, Bob
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Emery, Sir Peter
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Evennett, David
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Fallon, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Farr, Sir John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Favell, Tony
Knapman, Roger


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Knowles, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Knox, David


Forman, Nigel
Lang, Ian


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lawrence, Ivan


Forth, Eric
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark





Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lightbown, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lilley, Peter
Rowe, Andrew


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shelton, William (Streatham)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Maclean, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Madel, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malins, Humfrey
Speed, Keith


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stevens, Lewis


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miller, Hal
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mills, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Trotter, Neville


Morrison, Hon Sir Charles
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moss, Malcolm
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Waldegrave, Hon William


Neubert, Michael
Walden, George


Nicholls, Patrick
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Warren, Kenneth


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Page, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Paice, James
Wheeler, John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilkinson, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wilshire, David


Portillo, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Powell, William (Corby)



Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Renton, Tim
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tony Durant.


Rhodes James, Robert



Riddick, Graham

New Clause 19

AMNESTY

`(1) When a firearms holder voluntarily surrenders all rights to firearms previously possessed on firearms certificate which firearms are surrendered to any Chief Officer of Police there shall be—
(a) a 28 day cooling off period when the lawful owner may be allowed to direct the possession of the firearms to a new owner, such as a registered firearms dealer, an auctioneer, or firearms certificate holder with appropriate authority to possess that firearm, or
(b) the return of such firearms to the owner providing the owner has the authority to possess.

(2) All such amnesty and voluntarily surrender notices should include the advice that the holder of the firearms should obtain a current valuation of the value of the firearms and in suitable cases a temporary firearms certificate should be issued to the owner.'.—[Mr. William Ross.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We are familiar with the stories of the individual who finds an old painting in an antique shop or a little painting hanging on the wall of the study, or who buys an old painting at an auction and, to his intense surprise, discovers that he has come across a masterpiece worth many hundreds of thousands of pounds. That is extremely unlikely in the case of a firearm, but a close friend of mine who is keen on collecting firearms of all kinds once went to an auction where several old firearms were for sale. He did not succeed in purchasing any firearms, but he did buy some other stuff which he thought was junk including a locked tin box that rattled. He took the box home, prised it open and found in it a 31 calibre Colt of the earliest type. Conservative Members who know anything about firearms will realise that he had found the crowning piece of the day, which no one knew was in the box. My friend has kept that gun.
Chance finds like that can be made in every old house in the country. I understand that, whenever there is an amnesty, people turn their guns over to the police and the guns immediately become police property. People cannot get the guns back. All rights to a particular firearm are surrendered. However, there are occasions when the person finding a firearm is not able-bodied or sensible or someone who knows the value of the find. Often firearms turn up in a house after a death and the widows have to dispose of them. The weapon may fall into the hands of the deceased person's relatives, who may sometimes be quite distant relatives. They may be women who do not know the value of those weapons, do not like them and simply want to get rid of them. Sometimes they may fall into the hands of children or more distant descendants who have no interest in them. Those people may turn the weapons over to the police.
Sometimes those guns may be very valuable. In the nature of things, that is bound to be so. New clause 19 will give people a chance to check on the value of the firearm. It will provide a 28-day cooling-off period to allow the person to get the firearm back if he so chooses so that he can dispose of it in another way. As every one knows, in this day and age there is a cooling-off period for most types of hire-purchase agreements. I do not see why the same facility should not be extended to people who find themselves in the position that I have described.
New clause 19 would provide a protection for people who come across something of considerable value—possibly in the attic—or who may have had the firearm left to them and who then foolishly hand that weapon over to the police. New clause 19 is designed purely and simply for that purpose.
In our debate on the guillotine motion, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) expressed some concern about the contest for the high moral ground and delighted that it was not being fought this evening I hope that Ministers will restore that high moral ground because there is a very Everest of morality waiting to be scaled and claimed. Heaven knows, the Minister needs all the help he can get. We would he delighted if he would seize the opportunity and accept this sensible and socially acceptable new clause which would do his reputation—which has been much tarnished during the passage of the Bill—an enormous amount of good and restore his high standing in some respects.
If the Government refuse to accept the spirit of the new clause, they will plunge from the heights of morality that the Prime Minister claimed for her party the other day—[Interruption.] I have a bachelor of divinity beside me, so perhaps I should leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) to expand on these matters. He can do that better than most hon. Members because he at least has a theological training, which is sadly lacking among most hon. Members this evening.
I have moved the new clause in the full expectation that it will be supported by all those who value high morality and believe in looking after the poor people who by sheer chance find something of considerable value perhaps worth several thousand pounds-lying in an old attic which appears utterly useless, but which is very valuable to collectors of such items.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury): I want to ask the Minister a number of questions arising from the introduction of an amnesty. The Home Secretary referred to that possibility when we originally debated the White Paper. I have not heard any subsequent statement from a Minister about when such an amnesty might be introduced.
What are the Government's proposals for an amnesty? Do they intend that it should run for a comparatively short time or for up to three months, as in 1968? Does the Minister consider an amnesty as an attempt to persuade those who may simply have such weapons in their households to look out such weapons and take them to a police station or an arms dealer, or does he see it as a pardon for a wrongdoer?
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) has already said that many weapons are held by people without firearms certificates, but in their imagination those weapons will not be held illegally. They will simply suppose that the weapon, which may have been left to them by a member of their family, is one of their possessions. The fact that they have no intention of using it means that it is nothing more than a souvenir of the last war or some other event in their family's past. I do riot believe that one can describe such people as criminals or as being illegally in possession of such weapons, although I accept that strictly, within the law, that is the case.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that the purpose and benefit of an amnesty is to get as many weapons as possible which are held without firearms certificates out of the possession of individuals and into the possession of either the police or firearms dealers.
Am I right to suggest that, if someone is in possession of a firearm and takes it to a registered arms dealer, that dealer is able to buy it even though the owner does not have a certificate? Does the fact that that owner does not have a firearms certificate deny that person the right to sell it on the open market?

Mr. William Ross: If the hon. Gentleman considers the last part of my clause, he will see that a temporary firearms certificate would be provided in suitable cases.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I endorse his remarks.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, we are aware that many weapons made before the last war have a considerable market value. Obviously they represent a capital sum to many who may not have considerable financial resources. It would be wrong for such people simply to hand in those weapons to the police and to be given nothing more than a receipt, given the fact that one of the armourers involved in the last amnesty told me that the Home Office sold such weapons to the gun trade. That sale took from people who were not aware that they were breaking the law and denied them a cash benefit that could have been available to them had we allowed firearms dealers to participate in the last amnesty.
If we want the amnesty to winkle out as many weapons as possible and if we want it to encourage people to hand in those weapons for which they do not hold certificates, we must make it attractive for them to get rid of them. In those circumstances, I believe that the new clause has much to commend it.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: A number of points have been raised, one of which I hope will be answered by the document to which I have just received. I shall deal with the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson).
The object of the amnesty is to reduce the pool of illegally held weapons. I announced the amnesty in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), when I said:
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for Scotland propose that an amnesty be held for one month from 1 September this year. Planning is nearing completion; further details will be announced".—[Official Report, 17 May 1988; Vol. 133 c. 376.]
The pardon will be for unlawful possession. That is the offence to which the amnesty will apply. If, however, the weapon has been used in substantive offence, prosecution could be commenced.
The police will offer the weapons to the armed services, the forensic services or the museums. Subject to that, they will be destroyed. The answer to my hon. Friend's question about a person who has a gun and wishes to sell it is that a dealer can buy a firearm regardless of whether the seller has a firearms certificate. Of course, the seller would be committing an offence by having a firearm without a firearms certificate, and the amnesty will simply exonerate him from the consequences of unlawful

possession, but he must hand the gun to the police, who will destroy it if they do not wish to offer it to the museums, the armed services or the forensic services.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: If that is the case, surely it should be made known as widely as possible. Surely all those who have weapons and would be obliged to hand them in to the police during the amnesty and receive no compensation, could, between now and September, take those weapons to a firearms dealer and gain some financial benefit from the sale. Is the firearms dealer bound to report to the police that he has bought a weapon from someone who does not have a firearms certificate, or is that not a requirement?

Mr. Hogg: We are going into great detail. I shall try to answer my hon. Friend, but I do not guarantee that my answers will be completely right.
If a person finds a gun in his attic for which he should possess a certificate and does not, during the amnesty he can surrender the gun to the police without any consequences in respect of the offence of unlawful possession. If, however, before the amnesty has commenced, he goes to a dealer and seeks to sell it, although the dealer lawfully can buy the gun, the person seeking to sell it will be committing an offence of unlawful possession of a gun if he does not hold a certificate for a section 1 gun, for example. The amnesty to be held during the month commencing 1 September does not apply now, and does not apply to a transaction between the owner and the dealer, so the answer to that question is no.
The register that a dealer has to keep would contain a record of the transaction, and no doubt it would be possible for the police, if they were so minded, to discover that the seller did not possess a section 1 certificate. My hon. Friend might consider that to be a trifle remote, but that is a fairly accurate account of the law.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) invited me to depart from the high moral ground which I am glad he recognises I occupy. I find it a bit rum that I should be asked to depart from the high moral ground which I occupy with such elegance to assist people who are in unlawful possession of firearms. That seems a bizarre proposition, but that is what the hon. Gentleman argued, although it is not what his new clause proposes. Even more rumly, his new clause deals with an amnesty in respect of guns which are lawfully held and which can be sold to any old dealer at any time without the owner committing an offence. The hon. Gentleman will have to reconcile that little problem of the difference between his speech and the new clause.
As I am on my high moral ground, I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in the Chamber. I hope that he will forgive me, but there was one thing that I should have said about the consultative committee. We have to pay its members expenses. We have all forgotten that. We shall have to introduce a small amendment in another place to take account of expenses, which may result in a money resolution.

Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend may have suddenly woken up to the matter of expenses, but we are still waiting to know what the legislation will cost in police time, which must be millions of pounds more than the cost of the consultative committee.

Mr. Hogg: I was giving way. I was also trying to occupy the high moral ground. It seemed to me to be important that I should tell the House that the expenses of the members of the consultative committee will have to be met. We propose to make provision for that in another place and it may involve a money resolution. I wish that I had told the House that earlier. I am thoroughly ashamed of myself for not doing so, and I apologise and take this opportunity to tell the House what has to be done.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 50, Noes 178.

Division No. 330]
[11.25 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Michael, Alun


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Battle, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Bermingham, Gerald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Monro, Sir Hector


Buckley, George J.
Morgan, Rhodri


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Murphy, Paul


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Pike, Peter L.


Corbett, Robin
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Salmond, Alex


Dalyell, Tam
Skinner, Dennis


Dewar, Donald
Spearing, Nigel


Dixon, Don
Steel, Rt Hon David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Galbraith, Sam
Turner, Dennis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Walker, Bill (Tside North)


Haynes, Frank
Wallace, James


Henderson, Doug
Walley, Joan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Howells, Geraint
Wiggin, Jerry


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Worthington, Tony


Kennedy, Charles



Livsey, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


McCusker, Harold
Rev, Martin Smyth and Mr. Roy Beggs.


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Allason, Rupert
Cope, John


Amess, David
Cran, James


Amos, Alan
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arbuthnot, James
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Devlin, Tim


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, David
Dover, Den


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Durant, Tony


Baldry, Tony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Batiste, Spencer
Evennett, David


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fallon, Michael


Benyon, W.
Farr, Sir John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Favell, Tony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forman, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forth, Eric


Brazier, Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bright, Graham
Fox, Sir Marcus


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Franks, Cecil


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Freeman, Roger


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
French, Douglas


Buck, Sir Antony
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burt, Alistair
Gorst, John


Butler, Chris
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gregory, Conal


Carrington, Matthew
Ground, Patrick


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Cash, William
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hanley, Jeremy





Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Neubert, Michael


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Hawkins, Christopher
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayward, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Heddle, John
Paice, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Irvine, Michael
Renton, Tim


Jack, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rowe, Andrew


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Knowles, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knox, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lang, Ian
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Speed, Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stern, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Stevens, Lewis


Lightbown, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lilley, Peter
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Summerson, Hugo


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lord, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Townend, John (Bridlington)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Maclean, David
Tracey, Richard


Madel, David
Tredinnick, David


Malins, Humfrey
Trotter, Neville


Mans, Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Walden, George


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Maude, Hon Francis
Warren, Kenneth


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Watts, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wells, Bowen


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Wheeler, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Widdecombe, Ann


Miller, Hal
Wilkinson, John


Mills, Iain
Wilshire, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wood, Timothy


Montgomery, Sir Fergus



Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Moss, Malcolm
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and Mr. Alan Howarth.


Moynihan, Hon Colin

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

PROHIBITED WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'any self-loading or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 119, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'or pump action.'

Mr. Ross: Although the two amendments are being taken together, I hope that it will be possible for me to press them to two separate Divisions, as they deal with two rather different matters. Those matters occupied us at length in Committee in regard to Great Britain, but since then the Bill has moved forward, with the result that this


part of it is to be applied to Northern Ireland. I, at any rate, feel that it is in the Northern Ireland context that we must discuss it now.
As the House knows, there has been an enormous amount of terrorist murder in Northern Ireland over many years, during which time weapons and explosives of every conceivable type have been used. The one outstanding feature of all those weapons and explosives is that they were all illegal. As a result, people look askance at anyone who seeks to obtain possession of a self-loading or pump-action rifle.
If we are to consider whether people should be allowed to hold such firearms, we should consider very carefully whether they are actively used in crime. The powers already referred to this evening are ever present, hanging like a shadow over our proceedings from the moment of the Bill's conception until now, and they will probably be there until the Bill passes from the ken of the House.
The number of legally held firearms in Northern Ireland that have been used for murder is remarkably small. The number used by their legal owners is smaller still, and of the weapons used, very few have been either semi-automatic rifles of any description or pump-action rifles. We are talking not about ·22 rifles, which are excluded from the restrictions imposed by the Bill, but about full-bore rifles. There are not many of them in Northern Ireland and very few of them have been used illegally. In Committee, we embarked upon a learning curve and it is right that we should go through the same process this evening.

Mr. Corbett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), but he has a soft voice and it is difficult to hear what he is saying. I wonder whether you, Sir would invite right hon. and hon. Members who have pressing matters to discuss to do it elsewhere.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I hope that hon. Members will listen to the hon. Member who has the Floor.

Mr. Ross: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) for his support. I had thought that hon. Members who were chatting had finally decided that they would learn something and were discussing my remarks among themselves. After all, we had a great deal of discussion in Committee as we tried to educate those present. The process of self-education was very beneficial in Committee and I hope that it will prove equally beneficial in the House. That is why I tabled the amendment.
If the Government had not been so damn silly as to extend the Bill to Northern Ireland, the amendments would never have been tabled. I thought that the matter was over and done with, but the Government's diabolical decision to extend the legislation to Northern Ireland made it evident to me that we needed to discuss the matter in that context and to give the Government a chance to rethink their foolishness in trying to ban the weapons in the first place. The only known incidents in which a Ryan murders type weapon was used were the Ryan murders; he had two and he used only one.
The self-loading rifle should be left out of the Bill, as should the pump-action rifle. The use and storage of the

weapons should be left to the good sense of the gun owners under proper police controls, which are usually exercised very firmly in this country. The fact that the crimes involving such weapons are so few that they cannot be quantified is proof positive that they are no great danger to the community at large.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I can take this point fairly briefly. In substance we are considering whether the prohibition directed against self-loading and pump action rifles should be excluded from the Bill. We debated that matter extensively on Monday night. The House knows the Government's views on the matter. I know that I do not carry all my hon. Friends with me and I regret that, just as I regret that I do not carry the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) with me. It does not seem to me very helpful to go over the ground again, bearing in mind that the House may like to discuss the very important question of the buy-in policy.
I make two points about Northern Ireland. First, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office outlined both law and practice in very great detail on Monday, and they require no repetition from me. Secondly, the plain fact is that in Northern Ireland people are not entitled by practice to hold self-loading rifles lawfully. Therefore, nothing is being taken away from them that they lawfully possess at the moment. For all those reasons, I invite the House to reject the amendments.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 23, Noes 190.

Division No. 331]
[11.44 pm


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Michael, Alun


Battle, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Bermingham, Gerald
Morgan, Rhodri


Buckley, George J.
Murphy, Paul


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Pike, Peter L.


Cryer, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Galbraith, Sam
Spearing, Nigel


Golding, Mrs Llin



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Ayes:


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rev. Martin Smyth, and Mr. Roy Beggs.


McCusker, Harold



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Bright, Graham


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Allason, Rupert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Alton, David
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Amess, David
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Amos, Alan
Buck, Sir Antony


Arbuthnot, James
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butler, Chris


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Atkinson, David
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Carttiss, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cash, William


Baldry, Tony
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Cope, John


Benyon, W.
Cran, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Day, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Devlin, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Dover, Den






Dunn, Bob
Maude, Hon Francis


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Evennett, David
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Farr, Sir John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Favell, Tony
Miller, Hal


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mills, Iain


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forman, Nigel
Monro, Sir Hector


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Forth, Eric
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Moss, Malcolm


Fox, Sir Marcus
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Franks, Cecil
Neubert, Michael


Freeman, Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


French, Douglas
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gorst, John
Page, Richard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Paice, James


Gregory, Conal
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Ground, Patrick
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hampson, Dr Keith
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hanley, Jeremy
Portillo, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Powell, William (Corby)


Harris, David
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hawkins, Christopher
Renton, Tim


Hayward, Robert
Rhodes James, Robert


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Riddick, Graham


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Rowe, Andrew


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Ryder, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howells, Geraint
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Irvine, Michael
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jack, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jessel, Toby
Speed, Keith


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Stern, Michael


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Kennedy, Charles
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Summerson, Hugo


Kirkhope, Timothy
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Knapman, Roger
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Knowles, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knox, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lang, Ian
Tracey, Richard


Lawrence, Ivan
Tredinnick, David


Lee, John (Pendle)
Trotter, Neville


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Twinn. Dr Ian


Lightbown, David
Walden, George


Lilley, Peter
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Livsey, Richard
Wallace, James


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Warren, Kenneth


Lord, Michael
Watts, John


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Wells, Bowen


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Wheeler, John


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Widdecombe, Ann


Maclean, David
Wilkinson, John


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Wilshire, David


Madel, David
Wood, Timothy


Malins, Humfrey



Mans, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Mr. Tony Durant and Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Paul Dean): I understand that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East(Mr.Ross) would like a separate Division on amendment No. 119. Is that correct?

Mr. William Ross: Yes

Amendment proposed: No.119, in page 1, line 16, leave out 'or pump action.'—[Mr. William Ross.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 190.

Division No. 332]
[11.55 pm


AYES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Battle, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Bermingham, Gerald
Morgan, Rhodri


Buckley, George J.
Pike, Peter L.


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cryer, Bob
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Skinner, Dennis


Dixon, Don
Spearing, Nigel


Galbraith, Sam



Golding, Mrs Llin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Haynes, Frank
Rev. Martin Smyth and Mr. Roy Beggs.


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)



McCusker, Harold





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Allason, Rupert
Forman, Nigel


Alton, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Amess, David
Forth, Eric


Amos, Alan
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Arbuthnot, James
Fox, Sir Marcus


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Franks, Cecil


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Freeman, Roger


Ashby, David
French, Douglas


Atkinson, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gorst, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Baldry, Tony
Gregory, Conal


Batiste, Spencer
Ground, Patrick


Bellingham, Henry
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Benyon, W.
Hanley, Jeremy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Harris, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hawkins, Christopher


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hayward, Robert


Boswell, Tim
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brazier, Julian
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bright, Graham
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Howells, Geraint


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Burt, Alistair
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Butler, Chris
Irvine, Michael


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jack, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Carttiss, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Kennedy, Charles


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cope, John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cran, James
Knapman, Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knowles, Michael


Day, Stephen
Knox, David


Devlin, Tim
Lang, Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan


Dover, Den
Lee, John (Pendle)


Dunn, Bob
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Durant, Tony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lilley, Peter


Evennett, David
Livsey, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Farr, Sir John
Lord, Michael


Favell, Tony
Luce, Rt Hon Richard






Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Ryder, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shaw, David (Dover)


Maclean, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Madel, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Malins, Humfrey
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Mans, Keith
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maude, Hon Francis
Speed, Keith


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Miller, Hal
Summerson, Hugo


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moss, Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Tredinnick, David


Neubert, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walden, George


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walker, Bill (Tside North)


Page, Richard
Wallace, James


Paice, James
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Warren, Kenneth


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Watts, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wells, Bowen


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wheeler, John


Portillo, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Powell, William (Corby)
Wilkinson, John


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wilshire, David


Renton, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Rhodes James, Robert



Riddick, Graham
Tellers for the Noes:


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Rowe, Andrew

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 1, line 17 leave out from 'cartridges' to end of line 18.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government amendment No. 33.
Amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 23, leave out
'or which was manufactured before'
and insert
'and which was manufactured after'.
Amendment No. 131, in page 1, line 23 leave out 'before' and insert 'after'.

Mr. Hogg: These amendments are important. Their object is to delete from the Bill the amendment made in Committee to the effect that guns made before 1 January 1939 should not be caught by the ban. I refer to self-loading rifles and related weapons.
I cannot commend the amendment made in Committee. There is no obvious justification for the date chosen. Guns made before I January 1939 are just as lethal as those made thereafter. I have already explained that I think there is no justification for such weapons anyway. Moreover, the burden on the police of trying to decide whether a gun was made before 1 January 1939 and is thus permitted, or after that date and is thus prohibited, makes no sense. On that basis I invite the House to support the Government amendments.

Sir Hector Monro: I do not accept that the amendment should be made. My hon. Friend should realise that this is the eighth of 37 debates, and his wish to get on with

compensation is impossible. If he wanted to discuss compensation he could have tabled a Government amendment to give us an opportunity to do so. That merely highlights the iniquity of the guillotine motion.
Everything in the amendment will be overtaken if we debate the next amendment in detail. It deals with self-loading rifles, so it would seem better to agree to this amendment and move on to the next group so as to save time. However, I do not want my hon. Friend to leave the House thinking that I agree with what he has said.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 42.

Division No. 333]
[12.8 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gregory, Conal


Allason, Rupert
Ground, Patrick


Amess, David
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Amos, Alan
Hampson, Dr Keith


Arbuthnot, James
Hanley, Jeremy


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Harris, David


Ashby, David
Hawkins, Christopher


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Hayward, Robert


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Baldry, Tony
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Benyon, W.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Boswell, Tim
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Irvine, Michael


Bowis, John
Jack, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Jessel, Toby


Bright, Graham
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Burt, Alistair
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Butler, Chris
Kirkhope, Timothy


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Knapman, Roger


Carrington, Matthew
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Carttiss, Michael
Knowles, Michael


Cash, William
Knox, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lang, Ian


Cope, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Cran, James
Lee, John (Pendle)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Day, Stephen
Lightbown, David


Devlin, Tim
Lilley, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dover, Den
Lord, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Emery, Sir Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Maclean, David


Evennett, David
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Fallon, Michael
Madel, David


Farr, Sir John
Malins, Humfrey


Favell, Tony
Mans, Keith


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forman, Nigel
Maude, Hon Francis


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Forth, Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Franks, Cecil
Miller, Hal


Freeman, Roger
Mills, Iain


French, Douglas
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gorst, John
Moss, Malcolm






Moynihan, Hon Colin
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Neubert, Michael
Speed, Keith


Nicholls, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stevens, Lewis


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Page, Richard
Summerson, Hugo


Paice, James
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Portillo, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Powell, William (Corby)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walden, George


Renton, Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rhodes James, Robert
Warren, Kenneth


Riddick, Graham
Watts, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wells, Bowen


Rowe, Andrew
Wheeler, John


Ryder, Richard
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wood, Timothy


Shelton, William (Streatham)



Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Skeet, Sir Trevor





NOES


Alton, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Michael, Alun


Battle, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Beggs, Roy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Bellingham, Henry
Monro, Sir Hector


Bermingham, Gerald
Morgan, Rhodri


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Pike, Peter L.


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Buckley, George J.
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Salmond, Alex


Corbett, Robin
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dixon, Don
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wallace, James


Henderson, Doug
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Howells, Geraint
Wiggin, Jerry


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Wigley, Dafydd


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Noes:


Livsey, Richard
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Frank Cook.


McCusker, Harold

Question accordingly agreed to.

Sir Hector Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 1, line 17, after 'cartridges', insert
'or the magazine of which is incapable of holding more than five rounds'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
No. 128, in page 1, line 18, at end insert
'or which has an integal or detachable magazine the maximum capacity of which is not more than eight cartridges and the detachable magazine and/or rifle—

(a) bears a mark which has been approved by the Secretary of State for denoting that fact and which has been made either by one of the two companies mentioned in section 58(1) of the principal Act or by such other person as may be approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section, and
(b) that company or person has certified in writing that the magazine was initially so manufactured or that work has been carried out on the magazine in a manner approved by the Secretary of State as to

render it incapable of storing or containing more than eight cartridges of the calibre for which it was designed, manufactured or modified.'.
No. 129, in page 1, line I S, at end insert
'or which has an integral or detachable magazine the maximum capacity of which is not more than ten cartridges and the detachable magazine and/or rifle—
(a) bears a mark which has been approved by the Secretary of State for denoting that fact and which has been made either by one of the two companies mentioned in section 58(1) of the principal Act or by such other person as may be approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section, and
(b) that company or person has certified in writing that the magazine was initially so manufactured or that work has been carried out on the magazine in a manner approved by the Secretary of State as to render it incapable of storing or containing more than ten cartridges of the calibre for which it was designed, manufactured or modified.'.

Sir Hector Monro: We now come to the most important amendment and the last opportunity for the Government to redeem themselves in the eyes of hundreds of thousands of sportsmen, including target shooters, game shooters and clay pigeon shooters. Amendment No. 91, provides an opportunity for the Government to show that they understand firearms legislation and are not just bulldozing such legislation through the House irrespective of the arguments that they have lost with regularity throughout the passage of the Bill.
I have referred to self-loading rifles many times, so I shall not go into details now as my hon. Friends want to highlight the importance of the amendment. There are two matters on which I want answers from my hon. Friend the Minister tonight. The first, to which my hon. Friend the Minister has refused to respond so far, is about the disabled. Will my hon. Friend explain why the Government support the Sports Council and the Central Council for Physical Recreation and do everything to encourage recreation and sport for the disabled, yet turn their backs on the disabled in the matter of rifle shooting? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who wish to hold private conversations please do so outside the Chamber? I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's speech.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important to get things in the right perspective. We were discussing the possible result of the Bill going to another place. I was saying that when Lord Whitelaw——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to do that he should do it outside the Chamber. Matters for debate should be raised in the Chamber. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has the Floor. He is entitled to be heard and I need to listen to him.

Sir Hector Monro: I hope that my hon. Friend will respond also to my point about women. We have raised this issue frequently because many women find it impossible to use bolt-action rifles because of the kick and the difficulty of operating the action. As the Government appear dedicated to dealing with sex discrimination, will my hon. Friend tell us why he is preventing women from enjoying the sport of shooting with a full-bore rifle?
One of the more damaging arguments that my hon. Friend must answer relates to his attitude to the five-round integral magazine weapon, which we have talked about in great detail. Under the proposal there would be no more than five rounds in the magazine. Some magazines would hold only four, some three. It would be impossible to have large or detachable magazines. This would apply to the type of action, not to the volume of fire, because a 10-round bolt-action rifle, if it is well operated, can produce more fire power than five rounds in a self-loading rifle.
The Minister keeps returning to his argument—and in doing so sounds like an old 78 gramophone record—that the proposal is unnecessary because there is not an enormous number of rifles currently being manufactured. The point is that there is a significant number of fixed magazine rifles in production and I have given my hon. Friend their names. If those rifles became the only legal type available in this country, manufacturers would produce more of them. Surely my hon. Friend is not trying to prevent the production of weapons. He seems to be excited about the type of weapon.
My hon. Friend must answer those points. Many hon. Members want to raise other issues and we have less than 30 minutes left. I have spoken on this matter at length because it is something about which I feel very strongly. The amendment offers my hon. Friend the last opportunity to bring some common sense into a very bad Bill.

Mr. Colvin: I will not detain the House for long. It was significant to note that in the last Division 174 Members voted on the Government's side, out of a total vote of 356 Conservatives. Perhaps the fact that fewer than half the Government's supporters turned out on a three-line Whip shows the lack of support on the Conservative Benches for those measures. It also shows the lack of support for being here at this early hour with so many amendments still to be debated and so little time to discuss them. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
The Government's lack of understanding about the five-round integral magazine rifle is demonstrated by the White Paper that was published in December. That defined the rifles that would be added to the prohibited list under section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968. It referred to SLRs and pump-action rifles, but it did not make any specifications about the number of rounds. I have searched the White Paper to see if I can find any reference to five rounds but nothing is said. A lot is said however, about those military SLRs, of which Kalashnikovs are one example.

Mr. Skinner: When I was discussing this matter earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) we talked about the gunslingers in the other place cleaning up the Bill. Why are Conservative Members getting worked up about this, when they know that there are several hundred in the other place who are only too anxious to get hold of the Bill and sort it out—especially Lord Whitelaw? I made inquiries as to whether he was using a five-rounder on the day he was running the country during the miners' strike. The Prime Minister had gone to Switzerland to count her money or to deal with Nestlé or

whatever. When Lord Whitelaw went on the grouse moor for the first time that day he happened to shoot two fellers. What gun did he use?

Mr. Colvin: The hon. Member for Bolsover has made a valid point—it is the finger on the trigger that counts, not the weapon. The Government are trying to ban certain weapons but that will do nothing to reduce the amount of armed crime.
Paragraph 47 of the White Paper refers to compensation and states:
We have concluded that as a matter of principle it is undesirable and unjust to require the taxpayer at large to pay for the removal from the public domain of weapons which are an acknowledged threat to life.
The Government are arguing that the five-round SLR, with an integral magazine for those rounds, is a threat to human life. I do not believe that. I have asked the Under-Secretary before, and I ask again, how many crimes have been committed with SLRs with only five rounds?

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Throughout the unhappy course of the Bill, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has been notable by his sensible suggestions and by his constructive comments about the proposed legislation. Yet again he has demonstrated that good sense by his brief contribution to the debate.
I support everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. The views that he has expressed have support in other parts of the House than the Government Back Benches.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). The Minister should reconsider the argument and accept the amendment. I discussed SLRs on Second Reading and I am sorry that the Government have acted as they have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries mentioned two categories of people who use SLRs—the disabled, and women who wish to use rifles. In Scotland there is a great deal of afforestation and another category of user who has come to my notice is those people who use SLRs to control vermin. With the first shot, vermin may just be wounded and the advantage of a SLR is that a second shot can be fired quickly. In a densely wooded area, as opposed to an open hill, there is not the opportunity to dispatch vermin, without suffering on the first shot. Therefore, there a humane reason for considering such users. The Minister should consider this third category, whose argument has been put forcibly by those with direct experience of the control of vermin.

Mr. Bellingham: I do not plan to detain the House for more than half a minute, but I was on the Standing Committee when the matter was discussed in some detail. We raised this point at considerable length, in terms of the disabled, women and young people and in terms of the humane aspect, which has just been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), of the importance of shooting the second round very quickly during deer culling or vermin control.
I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that there was a strong possibility of a vote against clause 1 stand part. After some discussions, he told the Committee that he would consider seriously whether it would be right to leave in section 1 integral magazine self-loading guns. He went on at some length, and said:


Therefore, there is a case for that limited range of rifles, but a wholly different argument applies to the large magazine guns."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 8 March 1988; c. 326.]
12.30 am
On 8 March, the Minister said that he would consider the matter sympathetically and seriously. He used that quote from Hansard on Monday evening in response to my comments. He was less robust two days later, but I remind him that on 8 March he promised to look at it very carefully and seriously. On that basis, I and my colleagues on the Committee agreed to support him on clause I stand part. Had he not given that undertaking, we would have voted against him and won. Therefore, I urge him to look again at the matter with consideration for the quasi-commitment and to think in terms of the damage that could be done through legitimate sport to disabled people, young people and women.

Mr. William Ross: The amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) deal with this matter. My right hon. Friend says that he is not a shooter; he had enough to do with it during the war. I tabled the amendments so that the Minister could consider—if he is not past considering—what can be done to help practical shooting organisations in this country.
I am not sure what practical shooters do, but I do know that they use semi-automatic rifles. The only time that I have fired a semi-automatic rifle at a target was when I fired a course with the Ulster Defence Regiment. They thought that they were pretty good, and I had never used a semi-automatic before. I am happy to report to the House that this old ex-B man beat the whole blooming lot. That gave me a great deal of pleasure, but also worried me about the outcome of the conflict as the UDR were on my side. I hope that they have improved since. Perhaps I beat the raw recruits that day.
The two amendments are exactly the same, except that one refers to 8 cartridges and the other to 10. I understand from the practical shooters that a 10 cartridge magazine is quite sufficient for their purposes. However, the Minister has shown no willingness to meet the needs of that group of sportsmen, and I consider that he should think again very seriously.
The amendments show that if the Government are prepared to be sensible, it is possible to use a detachable magazine with which the rifle would be a legal weapon. If it went beyond the stated capacity, it would become an illegal weapon, and no reputable gun dealer would sell such a weapon, nor would any reputable club allow such a weapon to be used on its ranges.
The matter has been raised in the context of deactivation of weapons. When the Government were laying down the rule that a gun would have to be marked that it was completely deactivated, there is no reason why a gun or the magazine should not be marked or individually licensed on the permit for such use. If that could be done, there would be no problem. It removes the problem of the large capacity magazine on which the Minister dwelt so much on Monday night.
The Minister's understanding of large capacity and the shooters' understanding of large capacity seem to differ widely. The Minister is considering the full 30-round

military magazine. That is what he means by a large capacity magazine. I am talking about something one third of that.
In Committee, the Minister kindly took us to a certain establishment not all that far from here and demonstrated weapons to us. Those who went will remember clearly that he demonstrated that a five-shot shotgun could not keep up over about 20 rounds with an ordinary double-barrelled shotgun. What holds true for a double-barrelled shotgun as opposed to a five-shot automatic shotgun holds true for the limited capacity semi-automatic rifle, and well the Minister knows it. That is the reality. The plain truth is that if the Minister were not so blind to reality and so determined to go down this silly road, he would accept the amendment, or something very like it. He knows perfectly well that it is reasonable and practical.
I understand that it is possible to buy a silencer for a 410 shotgun. As long as it is on the shotgun, I understand that it is legal. The same silencer will fit the 45 Colt automatic pistol and that would be a highly illegal weapon. The Minister must try to understand the technicalities of these things. He must put his mind to them and come to understand the problems that are associated with these technical matters. Once he has done that we might start to make some reasonable and sensible progress.
The amendments meet the needs of the sporting world and the Government's purposes. They are perfectly satisfactory and I hope that the Minister will say that he is prepared to think again, rather than fooling on in the way that he has been.

Mr. Bill Walker: I rise to speak for the first time in the many debates on the Bill and I do so to support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
As hon. Members will know, I have a 2,000 square mile constituency and hundreds of square miles in my constituency contain forests. In those forests are many vermin which have to be controlled. There is no question but that the people who understand and know about these matters fail to understand why the Government cannot see that the use of firearms is a legitimate way of controlling vermin, a proper way, and, more importantly, a humane way to do so.
If the amendment is not accepted this evening, the people who will be upset and distressed are, without exception, Conservative supporters, and they will wonder quite what the Government are about. They realise that the Government are, quite properly, concerned with the activities that go on in the cities, but equally they must understand what goes on in the country, and, in particular, in the highland areas of Scotland where we have to control vermin which can do enormous damage to the crops and everything else. Unless they are kept under control, we shall find ourselves with huge problems and many establishments and homes will be put at risk because they will not be able to control vermin as effectively as they have done in the past. That could affect the economics of what at present is a marginal——

Sir John Farr: Will my hon. Friend explain exactly what he means by vermin?

Mr. Walker: I mean all types of vermin, including deer. There is no question but that deer are a big problem to us in the highlands of Scotland. Anyone who disagrees will be


welcome to come to my constituency. I shall be able to take them to see the many deer wandering around close to my home.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) argued that it is necessary to have a small capacity self-loading rifle to deal with vermin. Within the definition of the word "vermin", he includes deer. I do not agree with him. I have before me, for example, a letter from the chairman of the British Deer Society, on which I addressed the Committee.
The chairman of that society wrote to my hon. Friend the member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and dealt in some detail with my hon. Friend's assertion that a self-loading rifle is necessary for the killing of deer. He wrote:
I have taken great trouble to find out the extent to which these rifles"—
that is to say, self-loading rifles—
are used for deer management. I have spoken to the chairman of the Forestry Commission and the chairman of the Red Deer Commission, both of whom are happy with the British Deer Society position, which is that there is no heavyweight argument for these weapons to be used for deer management.
He continues:
As far as I can discover, it is simply not true that many roe stalkers throughout the United Kingdom use five shot, self-loading rifles. Even if they do the society would argue that the art of deer management is to stalk into the beast that you wish to kill and place one well-aimed shot to kill that animal immediately.
People who have studied this matter at some length and who represent the interests of those who act in this sport do not believe—I repeat, do not believe—that a self-loading rifle is necessary, or even desirable, for the purposes to which my hon. Friend referred.
It is extremely difficult to believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North is right when he says that the only suitable weapon for the killing of vermin—by which I assume he means foxes, grey squirrels, and the like—is a self-loading rifle. Those of us who have spent most of our lives shooting vermin have used other weapons perfectly satisfactorily—such as a shotgun or a small rim fire 22, which for these purposes can even be a self-loading rim fire 22.

Sir Hector Mon: rose——

Mr. Hogg: I am told to finish this. My hon. Friend may not like it, but I am going to do so.
The idea that one needs a self-loading rifle of the kind that is designed for military purposes to shoot vermin is simply preposterous.

Mr. Frank Cook: Does the Minister recall the occasion in Committee when I presented a letter from a farmer of many years' experience? That letter was accompanied by a photograph of the fox which that farmer had shot the previous Wednesday night and which was badly afflicted with mange. A fox has very quick reactions, and when firing at a fox from some distance it is essential that one's gun has the capacity not only to loose off a second shot, but also a third if necessary. The alternative is to leave the animal, disease-ridden as it may be, to limp around the countryside in great pain and suffering. Does the Minister

accept that that letter came from an expert who has spent a lifetime on the land and who knows what he is talking about? Is his opinion not to be respected?

Mr. Hogg: The comments of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) illustrate why the arguments in favour of this amendment are so bad. First, is it really right that people should be banging away many times with self-loading rifles? They may very well be doing it near their neighbours, near a road, near a village, or near other people picnicking in a field.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hogg: No, I shall not give way for the moment.
Secondly, the basic rule that I would commend to anyone who goes out shooting is to make sure that he is close enough to his target to kill it with the first shot, instead of shooting from a distance, or—as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) suggested—shooting at foxes at night with a self-loading rifle with night sights. That sort of thing makes no sense at all.

Mr. Colvin: Inadvertently, my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has given the Minister an escape route down which he is running as fast as he can. Will he please forget about this digression on vermin and address himself to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and myself, which are far more pertinent?

Mr. Hogg: I do not suppose that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North would like the cavalier way in which his hon. Friend has described his argument. I was taking that argument seriously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North expected me to. Incidentally, it is extremely similar to the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West, and identical to that put earlier this evening by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). The latter made the point very plainly that he needs his guns for deer shooting. He is not—and this is the point that I am making—supported by the hairman of the British Deer Society.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Is it not true that a Scot who requires five rounds to kill a deer is neither a good shot nor a good Scot?

Mr. Hogg: I confess that I very much wish that I had thought of such an elegant way of expressing a criticism that I must say I feel.

Sir Hector Monro: It is very disappointing that we are about to run out of time and my hon. Friend the Minister still will not answer the points about disability or women. Will he please do so now?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend really must expect me to deal with the issues that have been put before the House, and I am doing that.
Another point made from time to time by various hon. Members is that many rifles of this kind are available on the market. That is simply not true. I had this carefully checked. There are six rifles—I am excluding derivatives—known to the forensic services at Huntington which contain no more than five shots in an integral magazine.
One, and only one, is in production. We are being asked, as I understand it, to legislate against the possibility that someone, at some unspecified time, in respect of a limited market—namely, this country—will try to devise a self-loading rifle that falls within the category and would be certified as such by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The idea that numerous people possess these limited self-loading rifles is an illusion, if only because they do not exist in great numbers. What my hon. Friends want is something different. They want a larger self-loading rifle. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries wants the Garand. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is wriggling."] I am not wriggling. I am concentrating on the essential issues. My hon. Friend wants the eight-shot Garand, and everything that he has argued tonight is a stalking horse for that proposition. He is not particularly interested in the five-shot integral magazine.

Sir Hector Monro: May I ask my hon. Friend to respond to the amendment, which does not deal with anything more than five rounds?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is not correct. There are three amendments before us. I recommend that he reads amendment No. 128, for example, which refers specifically to eight cartridges in the magazine. We are dealing with a variety of guns—five-shot and eight-shot, on which I am concentrating. My hon. Friend knows that the Garand is an eight-shot, which is why he wants it. The question about women and the disabled is a stalking horse for the eight-shot Garand——

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sat patiently listening to the debate on the fundamental question of the disabled and women, for which debate I came into the Chamber specifically.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. What is the point of order?

Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) made his point succinctly and clearly. The Minister, on the other hand, spent half his time——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Mr. Bermingham: May I complete my point of order, Sir. It is a matter of courtesy——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am here to deal not with points of courtesy but with points of order.

Mr. Hogg: I was talking about the eight-shot Garand, because that is the subject of one of the amendments in this group.

Mr. Bermingham: Why does the Minister not speak to the House, rather than to his Back Benchers?

Mr. Hogg: It is usual to address the Chair, which is what I am doing at the moment, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have observed. From time to time I address my hon. Friends, and I address Opposition Members, too.
There is no reason to suppose that women and the disabled use the limited shot self-loading rifle, if only because such rifles do not exist in large numbers. We have considered carefully whether we could define disability in a meaningful way. We have to wrestle with the question of

a discretion that would be given in any event to chief constables. We have concluded that it is not possible to extend a concession only to those—

It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time), MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order this day, to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 42, Noes 171.

Division No. 334]
[12.52 am


AYES


Alton, David
McCusker, Harold


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Battle, John
Michael, Alun


Beggs, Roy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Bermingham, Gerald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Monro, Sir Hector


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Pike, Peter L.


Buckley, George J.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Colvin, Michael
Salmond, Alex


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Skinner, Dennis


Corbett, Robin
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Cryer, Bob
Steel, Rt Hon David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Dixon, Don
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Wallace, James


Galbraith, Sam
Walley, Joan


Golding, Mrs Llin
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Haynes, Frank
Wigley, Dafydd


Howells, Geraint



Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Jerry Wiggin and Mr. Henry Bellingham.


Livsey, Richard





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Dunn, Bob


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Durant, Tony


Allason, Rupert
Emery, Sir Peter


Amess, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Amos, Alan
Evennett, David


Arbuthnot, James
Fallon, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Farr, Sir John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Favell, Tony


Ashby, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Atkinson, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forman, Nigel


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baldry, Tony
Forth, Eric


Batiste, Spencer
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Franks, Cecil


Bevan, David Gilroy
Freeman, Roger


Biffen, Rt Hon John
French, Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gorst, John


Bowls, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brazier, Julian
Gregory, Conal


Bright, Graham
Ground, Patrick


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Christopher


Carttiss, Michael
Hayward, Robert


Cash, William
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Heddle, John


Cope, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Day, Stephen
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Devlin, Tim
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dover, Den
Irvine, Michael






Jack, Michael
Paice, James


Jessel, Toby
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Powell, William (Corby)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Knapman, Roger
Riddick, Graham


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Knowles, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Knox, David
Ryder, Richard


Lang, Ian
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lightbown, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lilley, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Speed, Keith


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stevens, Lewis


Maclean, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Summerson, Hugo


Madel, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Malins, Humfrey
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tracey, Richard


Maude, Hon Francis
Trotter, Neville


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Walden, George


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Miller, Hal
Warren, Kenneth


Mills, Iain
Watts, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wells, Bowen


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wheeler, John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Moss, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wilshire, David


Nelson, Anthony
Wood, Timothy


Neubert, Michael



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Noes:


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Oppenheim, Phillip



Page, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Do I have the leave of the House to put together all the outstanding Government amendments?

Mr. Colvin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for all the remaining Government amendments—there are 47 still on the Order Paper—to be swept through on the nod as if they were—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I only asked a question. Does any hon. Member wish to divide the House on any Government amendment, and if so, on which ones——

Hon. Members: Every one.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at that hour.

Amendment proposed: No. 32, in page 1, line 19, at end insert
`is not chambered for ·22 rim-fire cartridges and'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 35.

Division No. 335]
[1.05 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Allason, Rupert
Irvine, Michael


Amess, David
Jack, Michael


Amos, Alan
Jessel, Toby


Arbuthnot, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Ashby, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Atkinson, David
Kirkhope, Timothy


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Knapman, Roger


Baldry, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Batiste, Spencer
Knowles, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Knox, David


Bellingham, Henry
Lang, Ian


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Ivan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lee, John (Pendle)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Boswell, Tim
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lightbown, David


Bowis, John
Lilley, Peter


Brazier, Julian
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Bright, Graham
Lord, Michael


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Buck, Sir Antony
Maclean, David


Burt, Alistair
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Madel, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Malins, Humfrey


Carrington, Matthew
Mans, Keith


Cash, William
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Cope, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Cran, James
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Day, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Devlin, Tim
Miller, Hal


Dorrell, Stephen
Mills, Iain


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Dover, Den
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Dunn, Bob
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Durant, Tony
Moss, Malcolm


Emery, Sir Peter
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Nelson, Anthony


Fallon, Michael
Neubert, Michael


Farr, Sir John
Nicholls, Patrick


Favell, Tony
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Oppenheim, Phillip


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Page, Richard


Forman, Nigel
Paice, James


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Forth, Eric
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Portillo, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Powell, William (Corby)


Freeman, Roger
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


French, Douglas
Riddick, Graham


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Rowe, Andrew


Gorst, John
Ryder, Richard


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gregory, Conal
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Ground, Patrick
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hanley, Jeremy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Harris, David
Speed, Keith


Hawkins, Christopher
Stern, Michael


Hayward, Robert
Stevens, Lewis


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Heddle, John
Summerson, Hugo


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Tracey, Richard






Trotter, Neville
Widdecombe, Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wilkinson, John


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Wilshire, David


Walden, George
Wood, Timothy


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Warren, Kenneth
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watts, John
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Alan Howarth.


Wells, Bowen



Wheeler, John





NOES


Alton, David
Livsey, Richard


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McCusker, Harold


Battle, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Beggs, Roy
Michael, Alun


Bermingham, Gerald
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Buckley, George J.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Salmond, Alex


Corbett, Robin
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Dixon, Don
Wallace, James


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Galbraith, Sam
Wigley, Dafydd


Golding, Mrs Llin



Haynes, Frank
Tellers for the Noes:


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Peter L. Pike and


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Mr. Alan Meale.


Kennedy, Charles

Question accordingly agreed to

Amendment proposed: No. 33, in page 1, leave out line 23.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 34.

Division No. 336]
[1.16 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dorrell, Stephen


Allason, Rupert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amess, David
Dover, Den


Amos, Alan
Dunn, Bob


Arbuthnot, James
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Emery, Sir Peter


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Ashby, David
Fallon, Michael


Atkinson, David
Farr, Sir John


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Favell, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Forman, Nigel


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forth, Eric


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Franks, Cecil


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
French, Douglas


Bowis, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Buck, Sir Antony
Gregory, Conal


Burt, Alistair
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carrington, Matthew
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cash, William
Hanley, Jeremy


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Harris, David


Cope, John
Hawkins, Christopher


Cran, James
Hayward, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Heddle, John


Day, Stephen
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael





Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Page, Richard


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Paice, James


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irvine, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rowe, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knox, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lang, Ian
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Keith


Lightbown, David
Stern, Michael


Lilley, Peter
Stevens, Lewis


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lord, Michael
Summerson, Hugo


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Maclean, David
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Malins, Humfrey
Townsend, Cyril D. (B' heath)


Mans, Keith
Tracey, Richard


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Trotter, Neville


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maude, Hon Francis
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Walden, George


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Warren, Kenneth


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Watts, John


Miller, Hal
Wells, Bowen


Mills, Iain
Wheeler, John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Widdecombe, Ann


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wilkinson, John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Wilshire, David


Moss, Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Moynihan, Hon Colin



Nelson, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Neubert, Michael
Mr, Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Nicholls, Patrick





NOES


Alton, David
Livsey, Richard


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McCusker, Harold


Battle, John
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Beggs, Roy
Michael, Alun


Bermingham, Gerald
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Buckley, George J.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Salmond, Alex


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Dixon, Don
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Wallace, James


Galbraith, Sam
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wigley, Dafydd


 Haynes, Frank



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Mr. Peter Pike and Mr. Alan Meale.


Kennedy, Charles

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 34 in page 1, line 24, leave out 'revolving magazine smooth-bore gun' and insert
`smooth-bore revolver gun other than one which is chambered
for 9mm rim-fired cartridges or loaded at the muzzle end of each chamber;'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Sir Peter Emery: ( seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I refer you to Standing Order No. 39, which deals with unnecessarily claimed Divisions? It says:
Mr. Speaker may … take the vote of the House, or committee, by calling upon the Members who support, and who challenge his decision, successively to rise in their places; and he shall thereupon, as he thinks fit, either declare the determination of the House".
As there have been majorities of more than 130 in the previous Divisions, I believe that it may well be considered that the Divisions are unnecessary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can put that to the test when I come to collect the voices in a minute or so.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 35, in page 1, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—
`(ae) any rocket launcher, or any mortar, for projecting a stabilised missile, other than a launcher or mortar designed for line-throwing or pyrotechnic purposes or as signalling apparatus;".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Bermingham: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand the precedent in this matter, the last occasion on which Standing Order No. 35 was acted upon—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. 39."]—I accept that correction-was after five Divisions. Tonight—[Interruption.] I do not know what the hilarity on the Conservative Benches is all about, but it shows the arrogance—[Interruption.]
If on a matter that clearly divides the Government Benches, even after a guillotine against their own Members and when there are still 46 amendments on the Order Paper for discussion after the guillotined time has run out, it is permitted after only three or four Divisions on the amendments that Standing Order No. 39 should be invoked, that must be a negation of the democratic rights of the House. I therefore challenge your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that there was a time when your honourable predecessor, Mr. Deputy Speaker, ruled——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I do not know of any benchmark that should guide me in these matters. I only know that the House determined that there should be a Standing Order No. 39, and presumably it intended that it should be used, I cannot understand under what circumstances the House would decide that it should be used, were it not under the present circumstances, when the will of the House is clear and Divisions are being called.

Mr. Skinner: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to draw your attention to the fact that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Put on the hat."][Interruption.] During the 1970–74 Government, on the occasion when the Standing Order was invoked by the

then Speaker, there were only seven Members in one Lobby. It was only after several votes had taken place that the Speaker decided that he would invoke the Standing Order.
Another important factor to which I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that those seven Members were seven members of the Labour party. On this occasion there are people going through the Division Lobby who represent several different parties, including members of the Tory party. I should have thought that you would have waited some time longer before invoking Standing Order No. 39. The numbers have not been static on the Opposition Benches and there have been variations during the course of several Divisions.
You will have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there has also been a reduction in the vote on the Conservative Benches. Therefore, who is to know whether, in the course of the next 10 Divisions, the Tory Members would not have got tired of staying here? Their numbers would have decreased much faster, and therefore the difference between the two parties would have been much greater. I believe that what has happened tonight is that you have given the Government the opportunity to fly in the face of parliamentary democracy and——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I regret that the hon. Gentleman has tended to spoil his argument, to which I was listening carefully——

Mr. Skinner: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
—by his latter remarks. If the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) had intended to suggest that the Chair might have been wiser to allow the House to divide on one or two more amendments before invoking the provisions of Standing Order No. 39, the Chair might take account of that. The implication is that the hon. Gentlemen are prepared to understand that the Chair might, at its discretion, invoke the provisions of the Standing Order at the appropriate time.
I believe that that was the sense of the points of order, and I believe also that the Chair might be wise to take that into account. Therefore, if we now proceed to the next amendment——

Mr. Frank Cook: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that the normal procedure for voting on Divisions in this House allows a time delay of eight minutes from when the Division is called, before you, Sir, instruct that the doors be locked. When the Standing Order was invoked, that time limit had not been allowed, so it is possible that some hon. Members may even yet be on their way to take part in that Division. Therefore, I appeal to you——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. On the last occasion when the House divided, I called for the doors to be locked on the advice of the Clerk at the Table who takes account of the automatic time recording device which switches on automatically at the appropriate time. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that somehow the time limit was incorrect, certainly I shall have that equipment examined. I can only tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I take account of the flashing red light that comes on at the appropiate moment.

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the House is getting rather anxious to get to bed, as I am.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) pointed out, quite rightly, that hon. Members representing various parts of the United Kingdom took part in the Divisions. Through no fault of yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or of Mr. Speaker, some of us are being deprived of adequate opportunity to discuss some of the very important matters that are now being steamrollered through. That is through no fault of yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker; it is simply because the Government did not give adequate notice that Northern Ireland would be included in the Bill. We had no opportunity to consult our constituents. The maximum period of consultation was three days. The normal courtesy of notifying the party leaders in Northern Ireland was not observed on this occasion.
If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would be willing to take up the point with which you seemed to find some sympathy, I would be content if you were to reconsider that narrow point without any other implications and allow us to take some more Divisions. Then, although we have been deprived of speaking on these new amendments and new clauses, at least hon. Members representing the component parts of the United Kingdom will be able to vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House would expect me to have regard to the points of order and the substance of the points of order that have been expressed, particularly the point made by the leader of the Official Unionist party.

The House having divided: Ayes 167, Noes 33.

Division No. 337]
[1.40 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Cash, William


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Allason, Rupert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cope, John


Amos, Alan
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dover, Den


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dunn, Bob


Baldry, Tony
Durant, Tony


Batiste, Spencer
Emery, Sir Peter


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fallon, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Farr, Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Favell, Tony


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boswell, Tim
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forman, Nigel


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brazier, Julian
Forth, Eric


Bright, Graham
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Fox, Sir Marcus


Buck, Sir Antony
Franks, Cecil


Burt, Alistair
Freeman, Roger


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
French, Douglas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles





Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Gregory, Conal
Moss, Malcolm


Ground, Patrick
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Nelson, Anthony


Hampson, Dr Keith
Neubert, Michael


Hanley, Jeremy
Nicholls, Patrick


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Harris, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hawkins, Christopher
Page, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Paice, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Heddle, John
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoftrey


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Portillo, Michael


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Renton, Tim


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Irvine, Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Jack, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Janman, Tim
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knapman, Roger
Speed, Keith


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stern, Michael


Knowles, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Knox, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lang, Ian
Summerson, Hugo


Lawrence, Ivan
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lee, John (Pendle)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lightbown, David
Tracey, Richard


Lilley, Peter
Trotter, Neville


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lord, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Maclean, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Malins, Humfrey
Warren, Kenneth


Mans, Keith
Watts, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Wells, Bowen


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wheeler, John


Maude, Hon Francis
Widdecombe, Ann


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wilkinson, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wilshire, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Meyer, Sir Anthony



Miller, Hal
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mills, Iain
Mr. Alan Howarth and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)



Montgomery, Sir Fergus





NOES


Alton, David
McCusker, Harold


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Battle, John
Michael, Alun


Beggs, Roy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Bermingham, Gerald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Salmond, Alex


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Dixon, Don
Wallace, James


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Walley, Joan


Galbraith, Sam
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wigley, Dafydd


Haynes, Frank



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Mr. Peter Pike and Mr. Alan Meale.


Kennedy, Charles



Livsey, Richard

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 36, in page 1, line 27, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 32.

Division No. 338]
[1.54 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Heddle, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Allason, Rupert
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Amess, David
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Amos, Alan
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Arbuthnot, James
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Ashby, David
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Atkinson, David
Irvine, Michael


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Jack, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Janman, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Jessel, Toby


Batiste, Spencer
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Knapman, Roger


Boswell, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Knowles, Michael


Bowis, John
Knox, David


Brazier, Julian
Lang, Ian


Bright, Graham
Lawrence, Ivan


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Lee, John (Pendle)


Buck, Sir Antony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Burt, Alistair
Lightbown, David


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lilley, Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cash, William
Lord, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Maclean, David


Cope, John
Malins, Humfrey


Cran, James
Mans, Keith


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Day, Stephen
Maude, Hon Francis


Devlin, Tim
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Dorrell, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Dover, Den
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Dunn, Bob
Miller, Hal


Durant, Tony
Mills, Iain


Emery, Sir Peter
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fallon, Michael
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Farr, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Favell, Tony
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Nelson, Anthony


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Neubert, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Nicholls, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forth, Eric
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Page, Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Paice, James


Franks, Cecil
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Freeman, Roger
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


French, Douglas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Portillo, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Powell, William (Corby)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Gregory, Conal
Renton, Tim


Ground, Patrick
Riddick, Graham


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rowe, Andrew


Hanley, Jeremy
Ryder, Richard


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Harris, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hawkins, Christopher
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hayward, Robert
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)





Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Walden, George


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Speed, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wheeler, John


Summerson, Hugo
Widdecombe, Ann


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wilshire, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wood, Timothy


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)



Tracey, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trotter, Neville
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.


Twinn, Dr Ian



Waddington, Rt Hon David





NOES


Alton, David
McCusker, Harold


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Battle, John
Michael, Alun


Beggs, Roy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Bermingham, Gerald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Salmond, Alex


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Dixon, Don
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Wallace, James


Golding, Mrs Llin
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Haynes, Frank
Wigley, Dafydd


Howells, Geraint



Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Peter Pike.


Livsey, Richard

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to a Government amendment No. 37. Do I have the leave of the House to put Government amendment No. 38 with it?

Hon. Members: No.

Amendment proposed: No. 37, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'containing an explosive charge' and insert
'designed to explode on or immediately before impact'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 166, Noes 31.

Division No. 339]
[2.07 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Carrington, Matthew


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cash, William


Allason, Rupert
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amos, Alan
Cope, John


Arbuthnot, James
Cran, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Ashby, David
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, David
Devlin, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Batiste, Spencer
Dunn, Bob


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Durant, Tony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Emery, Sir Peter


Bevan, David Gilroy
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fallon, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Farr, Sir John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Favell, Tony


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brazier, Julian
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Buck, Sir Antony
Forth, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Franks, Cecil






Freeman, Roger
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


French, Douglas
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moss, Malcolm


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gregory, Conal
Nelson, Anthony


Ground, Patrick
Neubert, Michael


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hanley, Jeremy
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Page, Richard


Harris, David
Paice, James


Hawkins, Christopher
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hayward, Robert
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Michael


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Renton, Tim


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowe, Andrew


Irvine, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Jack, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Janman, Tim
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Speed, Keith


Knapman, Roger
Stern, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stevens, Lewis


Knowles, Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Knox, David
Summerson, Hugo


Lang, Ian
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lawrence, Ivan
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Tracey, Richard


Lightbown, David
Trotter, Neville


Lilley, Peter
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Lord, Michael
Walden, George


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Maclean, David
Warren, Kenneth


Malins, Humfrey
Watts, John


Mans, Keith
Wells, Bowen


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Wheeler, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Widdecombe, Ann


Maude, Hon Francis
Wilkinson, John


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wilshire, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wood, Timothy


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick



Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Miller, Hal
Mr. Robert Boscawen and Mr. Alan Howarth


Mills, Iain





NOES


Alton, David
McCusker, Harold


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Battle, John
Michael, Alun


Beggs, Roy
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Bermingham, Gerald
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Salmond, Alex


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Dixon, Don
Wallace, James


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Wigley, Dafydd


Haynes, Frank



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Peter Pike


Kennedy, Charles



Livsey, Richard

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 38, in page 2, line 7, leave out "explosive rocket or shell" and insert
or rocket or shell designed to explode as aforesaid".—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment to made:

The House divided; Ayes 166, Noes 31.

Division No. 340]
[2.22 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hayward, Robert


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Allason, Rupert
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Amess, David
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Amos, Alan
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Arbuthnot, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; Bwd)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Ashby, David
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Atkinson, David
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Irvine, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Jack, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Janman, Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Jessel, Toby


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jones, Robert B ("Herts W)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Kirkhope, Timothy


Boswell, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Bowis, John
Knowles, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Knox, David


Bright, Graham
Lang, Ian


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Lawrence, Ivan


Buck, Sir Antony
Lee, John (Pendle)


Burt, Alistair
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lightbown, David


Carrington, Matthew
Lilley, Peter


Cash, William
Lord, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Maclean, David


Cope, John
Malins, Humfrey


Cran, James
Mans, Keith


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Day, Stephen
Maude, Hon Francis


Devlin, Tim
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dover, Den
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Dunn, Bob
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Durant, Tony
Miller, Hal


Emery, Sir Peter
Mills, Iain


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fallon, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Farr, Sir John
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Favell, Tony
Moss, Malcolm


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Nelson, Anthony


Forman, Nigel
Neubert, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholls, Patrick


Forth, Eric
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fox, Sir Marcus
Page, Richard


Franks, Cecil
Paice, James


Freeman, Roger
Patten, John (Oxford W)


French, Douglas
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Porter, David (Waveney)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Portillo, Michael


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Powell, William (Corby)


Gregory, Conal
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Ground, Patrick
Renton, Tim


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Riddick, Graham


Hampson, Dr Keith
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hanley, Jeremy
Rowe, Andrew


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Ryder, Richard


Harris, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hawkins, Christopher
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)






Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Walden, George


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Warren, Kenneth


Speed, Keith
Watts, John


Stern, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Stevens, Lewis
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Summerson, Hugo
Wilkinson, John


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wilshire, David


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Peter Lloyd and Mr. Stephen Dorrell


Trotter, Neville





NOES


Alton, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Michael, Alun


Battle, John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Beggs, Roy
Pike, Peter L.


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Salmond, Alex


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Dixon, Don
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Wallace, James


Golding, Mrs Llin
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Haynes, Frank
Wigley, Dafydd


Howells, Geraint



Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Gerald Bermingham and Mr. Alan Meale.


Livsey, Richard



McCusker, Harold

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 39, in page 2, line 10, after 'which', insert '(a)'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we are apparently not having a Division, it is handy not to have the headgear on. The first Division on this measure gave the Government a majority of 136. The votes for the Ayes on the guillotine motion were 278, and for the Noes 142. In the last Division before the one that took place under Standing Order No. 39, the Ayes were 166 and the Noes were 31, giving a majority of 135. That was one less than the Government's majority on the guillotine motion.
Adopting the principle that a majority of 135 or 136 implies that we can abandon Divisions, we could have abandoned the Division even for the guillotine motion. Each side has lost 100, but the majority has been maintained. It is a dangerous precedent to allow Standing Order No. 39 to be used when the majority is very much of the order that the Government obtain in their day-to-day business.
By using Standing Order No. 39, Members who wish to register their objections in the Division Lobbies are denied that wish because no record of names is taken. That is a very important principle and the reason why we do not have a secret ballot and why a record is taken at the desk for publication the following day. It is a very important

and a treasured principle that hon. Members are accountable by the record of their votes. The use of Standing Order No. 39 is a denial of that right in circumstances in which the Government are obtaining exactly the same or a smaller majority than that which they obtained when the full panoply of the Standing Orders was applied for the guillotine motion. I therefore hope that you will not use Standing Order No. 39 again in the remaining Divisions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I believe that the House would like me to deal with this point. The argument that the hon. Gentleman has advanced is not an argument against the use of Standing Order No. 39. Rather it was an argument against Standing Order No. 39. If the House agreed that Standing Order No. 39 was an appropriate addition to our Standing Orders, these are presumably the circumstances in which the House envisaged that the Standing Order should be used.
The size of the majority in the Divisions has been very consistent. It is clear that in exercising my judgment—as I am required to do—I was fully justified in taking account of the very large majority to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. Perhaps we should move on now.

Rev. Martin Smyth: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Following the line of reasoning of the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may I have some guidance from the Chair? As I understand it, no record is taken of hon. Members who vote. In another tradition, those of us who wish to record our dissent or have our votes registered have a right to do that so that people can know that we have represented their interests.
I appreciate that some right hon. and hon. Members may not wish to have their votes registered in these circumstances. However, those of us representing constituencies in Northern Ireland would be very happy to have our votes registered to give account of our stewardship.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One point at a time. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) to the fact that "Erskine May" makes it clear on page 402 that it is our practice in these circumstances to record the numbers of those who wish to vote contrary to the motion before the House, but not to record the names.

Mr. Skinner: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of the problems that you face is that when Standing Order No. 39 is used you must be satisfied that it is being used only very sparingly; otherwise anyone in the Chair could be charged with taking decisions and not giving people an opportunity to cast their votes in the proper fashion.
I realised many years ago when we had a series of Divisions between 1970 and 1974 when we got down to seven hon. Members that the charge hardly became sustainable in terms of points of order. However, we raised them and we lost. There were seven of us from one party. Throughout tonight there have been hon. Members from the different sections in Northern Ireland, there have been Liberals, Social Democrats, people from the Labour party and on odd occasions there have been Tories. We have also had members of the Scottish National party and the Welsh


national party. In other words, we probably have had more parties supporting the Opposition than there were people engaged in the Divisions way back between 1970 and 1974.
It would be unfortunate if the practice of using Standing Order No. 39 was continued in future. For instance, when we debated the Firearms (Amendment) Bill before it was halted the other night, the number of people who voted against it——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not believe that we can carry on a debate about the exercise of my discretion. This is a matter for my discretion. I have exercised it, and I do not believe that it is a matter for debate in the House. I have ruled, and the House must accept my ruling

Mr. Frank Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not seeking to challenge your ruling, but I ask you to ponder, if only briefly, the fact that you gave your ruling on the grounds that the majority had been remarkably consistent. The majority in this Chamber has been remarkably consistent for the past 12 months. If you base the application of Standing Order No. 39 on that premise, you could apply it on every day that the House sits. I believe that that would be a denial of democracy and quite unacceptable to the electorate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would realise that the rarity of the invocation of Standing Order No. 39 refutes the point that he is seeking to put to the House.
We use Standing Order No. 39 when, in the judgment and at the discretion of the Chair, it seems appropriate to do so. I have deemed it appropriate to do so in these circumstances. I did so having regard to points of order that were put to me earlier in our proceedings. I took them into account, weighed them heavily, and am satisfied that I have exercised my judgment and discretion properly in the circumstances. I believe that we should now get on.

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not seek to challenge your ruling, but I seek your guidance [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] When they have quietened down, hon. Members may realise that I am seeking to make an important point.
As I understand the procedure that will now follow—[Interruption]—if the chuntering dies down, hon. Members may hear something to their advantage—you will ask each side to rise either for or against each amendment. Were it to reach a time when the number rising for the motion decreased significantly, whereas the number of hon. Members rising against the motion were to remain constant, would it still be your ruling that Standing Order No. 39 apply?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to the statement that I made when collecting the voices when the Question was last put he would have heard it prefaced with the words "The Chair's opinion". It is a matter for the opinion of the Chair. In the hypothetical circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described to the House, if the Chair was of a contrary opinion, it would rule accordingly.

Amendment proposed: No. 40, in page 2, line 11, leave out `which'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division——

Mr. William Ross: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I would not wish to challenge your ruling, may I draw your attention to the statement in "Erskine May" about Standing Order No. 39—originally No. 38—which was introduced to avoid frivolous Divisions. Tonight's Divisions cannot be described as frivolous, because the matters under discussion are of considerable importance. In the light of that, I wonder whether you might care to reconsider whether further Divisions should take place in the normal fashion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the last occasion that the Question was put I ruled from the Chair that in my opinion the Division was unnecessarily claimed. As it is manifest that the view of the, House is overwhelmingly on one side, there seems no point in taking up the time of the House and of hon. Members when the outcome is so obviously predictable. That is the sense in which Standing Order No. 39 was conceived.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be seated and covered.

Mr. Skinner: (seated and covered): I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you failed to take into account the fact that in the Division Lobby we had nearly half the Ulster Unionist party, about one third of the SLD, two thirds of the Welsh nationalists and all the Scottish National party. Those parties are all recognised in the House. We should get to the point that those people are being deprived of the opportunity to be properly represented in the Lobbies in the form that they have taken tonight and that is a negation of parliamentary democracy. On the basis of the representation of those minority parties, I would ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker seriously——

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 41, in page 2, line 12, after `dangerous', insert; and
(b) in the case of a firearm, was not lawfully on sale in Great Britain in substantial numbers at any time before 1988,'.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall now respond to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). In normal circumstances, after a Division, the Tellers come to the Table and announce the result. The result is not split into


parties, but is given as the numbers taking part in the Division. That is what the Chair must have regard to when putting the Question.

Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What were the numbers taken for the last Division?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: They were 166 to 31.

Mr. Frank Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to know how it is possible to determine that those in favour were 166? I wish to challenge the vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon and that of the House. That was the last time that we had a Division when Tellers announced the result to the Chair. The Clerk has the number of Noes for the last occasion. However, that is irrelevant, because this is a matter for the Chair. The number voting Aye was significantly greater than those who voted No. I hope that no one in the House will express a view contrary to that.

Mr. Frank Cook: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, informed the House that "Erskine May" contained the necessity of a record to be kept of those who had voted against. We are simply asking that that information be imparted to the House on each occasion. Is there no obligation on the Chair or on the Table—[Interruption.] If "Erskine May" contains an obligation that the operation be carried out, surely there must be an obligation that the result of that operation be reported to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that these are matters for the discretion and judgment of the Chair. I have exercised my discretion and my judgment.

Mr. Peter Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that the Government have put you in the difficult position of having to exercise your discretion this evening? We are debating a Government Bill and the Government amendments to that Bill could not be debated because of the Government's guillotine.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to reopen a debate which has already taken place, which has reached its conclusion, and on which the House has voted. The House voted on this matter yesterday—or today, by our conventions—and came to a decision. Under the terms of the motion which the House passed, I am required to put the Question on these matters without further debate.

Mr. Pike: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I seek your guidance. Would not the Government assist you if they were to withdraw the remaining amendments?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman says that he is seeking my guidance. My guidance to him is not to pursue that matter any further, because it is irrelevant.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I correct in thinking that, when I earlier raised the question of names not being recorded under the Standing Order No. 39 procedure, you stated that numbers would

be recorded? My recollection is that you made that response to satisfy my point that it was a dereliction of our democracy not to have those names recorded. On the last Division, no numbers were recorded for either side. I specifically recall that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said that the number of objectors would be recorded, but that did not happen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that I did not mislead the House. Names are not taken but the numbers are recorded by the Clerks and are recorded in the Journal of the House. We ought to get on.

Mr. Harold McCusker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the basis of the remarks you have just made, am I not entitled to know by how many I lost the last vote? On the last occasion, 126 Members rose from their seats; if the Clerk did not count them, I can advise him of that fact. I imagine that between now and 4 o'clock a larger or smaller number of Members than that may rise from their seats. May the House be given an assurance that the Clerks will count those Members each time they rise?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Under our Standing Orders, the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to know.

Mr. McCusker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that the number would be recorded in the Journal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I said earlier, the minority vote—the number of those Members voting against the motion—will be recorded in the Journal. However, under Standing Orders the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to know now the numbers who voted either for or against on the last occasion that the Question was put.

Mr. Molyneaux: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that at some point the number of Members voting for or against will be recorded in the Journal? If so, with respect, is sufficient time being given to the Table to count the numbers voting on each side of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Only those Members voting against a motion—the minority—will be counted and recorded in the Journal.

Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to raise two points of order. The first is that the number against the motion in the last vote was not counted and recorded. I raise a second point, Mr. Deputy Speaker——

3 am

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that that is incorrect. The Clerk counted the number who voted against the last time that the Question was put to the House.

Amendment proposed: No. 41, in page 2, line 12, after `dangerous', insert
`; and
(b) in the case of a firearm, was not lawfully on sale in Great Britain in substantial numbers at any time before 1988:.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the


Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in understanding that it is out of order for Members to take part in debates if they are outside the Bar or in the Under Gallery? If that is so, how is it possible for hon. Members in those areas to take part in the Division?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not aware that they voted. The fact that someone stands, sits down or does something else beyond the Bar of the House is not a matter for me and is not taken into account in our proceedings unless it interferes with or disrupts those proceedings.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible for us to be told as we go along how many Members are voting against the motion? I would like to know whether we are winning.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to be helpful, but I think that it might facilitate our proceedings if the hon. Gentleman sought the advice of the Clerks as to the numbers who have voted at the end of each Division.

Mr. William Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall the previous point raised about the hon. Members standing outside the Bar of the House. You will have noted that when you last called a Division——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, because it gives me the opportunity to suggest that hon. Members beyond the Bar of the House who are not taking part in our proceedings should not presume to do so. They are only creating confusion, and I would urge them either to leave the House or to take no part.

Clause 2

RE-DEFINITION OF EXEMPTED SHOT GUNS AND SHOT GUN AMMUNITION

Amendment proposed: No. 42, in page 2, line 27, leave out from 'which' to 'gun' in line 32 and insert—
`(i) has a barrel not less than 24 inches in length and does not have any barrel with a bore exceeding 2 inches in diameter;
(ii) either has no magazine or has a non-detachable magazine incapable of holding more than two cartridges; and
(iii) is not a revolver'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Salmond (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand the procedure, you have to use your discretion and judgment in determining whether a Division is necessary. Presumably you do that on the basis of the noise on each side of the House. How can you differentiate between the noise made by hon. Members in the Chamber and that made by those outside the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I use not only my ears but my eyes.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 43, in page 2, line 32, at end insert—
'(2A) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
(3A) A gun which has been adapted to have such a magazine as is mentioned in subsection (3)(a)(ii) above shall not be regarded as falling within that provision unless the magazine bears a mark approved by the Secretary of State for denoting that fact and that mark has been made, and the adaptation has been certified in writing as having been carried out in a mariner approved by him, either by one of the two companies mentioned in section 58(1) of this Act or by such other person as may be approved by him for that purpose.".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it: and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Cryer: I spy Strangers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are in the middle of a series of decisions, and I am not prepared to accept that motion.

Amendment proposed: No. 44, in page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it: and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

TRANSFERS OF SHOT GUNS

Amendment proposed: No. 24, in page 3, line 12, leave out from beginning to `to' and insert
`This section applies where a person—
(a) sells, lets on hire or gives a shot gun; or
(b) lends a shot gun for a period of more than forty-eight hours,'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it: and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 25, in page 3, line 17, leave out '(a)' and insert `(1A)'.—[.Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it: and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 26, in page 3, line 20, leave out 'forty-eight hours' and insert 'seven days'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. William Ross: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will be within your recollection that your colleague in the Chair drew attention to the fact that certain hon. Members were standing when the votes were taken although they were beyond the Bar. I have been watching carefully and have noticed that the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown), who is at present beyond the Bar; together with one of his colleagues directly in front of him, and several Members on the Back Benches, have been standing every time. Is that in order? Surely they are beyond the Bar and cannot vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As my predecessor in the Chair said, it would be helpful, in the fairly unusual situation that we are going through, if hon. Members were actually inside or outside the Chamber. That would make it easier, especially for the Clerks, to take the count of those who do not support my decisions.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 27, in page 3 line 26, leave out '(b)' and insert '(1B)'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 28, in page 3, line 26, leave out 'forty-eight hours' and insert 'seven days'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 29, in page 3, line 29 leave out `(1)' and insert '(1A) or (1B)'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. William Ross: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am getting to like this hat. We are having great difficulty in hearing which amendment you are calling, because of the noise. Would it be possible for you to turn down the volume on the Government side of the House or to turn up the volume of your loudspeaker so that we can hear more clearly?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad to respond to the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Which amendment are we on now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. 29.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

SHORTENING OF BARRELS

Amendment proposed: No. 45, in page 4, line 10 leave out 'revolving magazine' and insert 'revolver'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8

FIREARMS DEALERS

Amendment proposed: No. 51, in page 4, line 38, at end insert
'Or as an essential part of another trade, business or profession.'—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. Deputy Speaker stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 46, in page 4, line 44, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. Deputy Speaker stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 52, in page 5, line 5, leave out from 'that' to end of line 6 and insert
`each entry made after the coming into force of this subsection will be available for inspection for at least five years from the date on which it was made.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. Deputy Speaker stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11

VISITORS' PERMITS

Amendment proposed: No. 53, in page 6, line 28, leave out 'will have' and insert
`has a good reason for having'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 54, in page 6, line 30, leave out from 'ammunition,' to end of line 31 and insert
`for purchasing or acquiring it, while he is a visitor to Great Britain;'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 55, in page 6, line 32, leave out 'will have' and insert
`has a good reason for having'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 56, in page 6, leave out line 34, and insert
`for purchasing or acquiring it, while he is such a visitor.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly

called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 57 in page 6, line 36, leave out from 'believe' to 'that' in line 38 and insert—

'(a) that his possession of the weapons or ammunition in question would represent a danger to the public safety or to the peace; or
(b)'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

4 am

Amendment proposed: No. 58, in page 7, line 3, at end insert—
'(5A) A single application (a "group application") may be made under this section for the grant of not more than twenty permits to persons specified in the application if it is shown to the satisfaction of the chief officer of police that their purpose in having the weapons in question in their possession while visiting Great Britain is—

(a) using them for sporting purposes on the same private premises during the same period; or
(b) participating in the same competition or other event or the same series of competitions or other events.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 59, in page 7, line 5, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 7 and insert
'on the grant of a permit under this section a fee of £12 except that where six or more permits are granted on a group application the fee shall be £60 in respect of those permits taken together.
(6A) Subsection (6) above'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

SHOT GUNS ACQUIRED FOR EXPORT

Amendment proposed: No. 60, in page 7, line 23, at end insert
'(1A) A person may, without holding a firearm certificate, purchase from a registered firearms dealer a firearm to which section 1 of the principal Act applies if—
(a) that person has not been in Great Britain for more than thirty days in the preceding twelve months; and


(b) the firearm is purchased for the purpose only of being exported from Great Britain without first coming into that person's possession.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 61, in page 7, line 24, after `gun', insert 'or other firearm'.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 62, in page 7, line 25, after `(1), insert 'or (1A)'.—Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13

FIREARMS IN MUSEUMS

Amendment proposed, No. 68, in page 8, line 1, after `firearms', insert 'and ammunition'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15

PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF PROHIBITED WEAPONS

Amendment proposed: No. 63, in page 8, line 23, leave out from 'them' to end of line 25 and insert
`; or
(b) which before that date they had contracted to acquire and were entitled to have in their possession on or after that date by virtue of such certificates held by them,
and the possession of which will become, or has become, unlawful by virtue of section 1(2) above.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

FIREARMS CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

Amendment proposed: No. 148, in page 8, line 27, leave out from 'a' to end of line 35 and insert
`firearms consultative committee consisting of a chairman and not less than twelve other members appointed by the Secretary of State, being persons appearing to him to have knowledge and experience of one or more of the following matters—

(a) the possession, use or keeping of, or transactions in, firearms;
(b) weapon technology; and
(c) the administration or enforcement of the provisions of the principal Act, the Firearms Act 1982 and this Act.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 149, in page 8, line 36, leave out `Consultative'—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 150, in page 8, line 39, leave out from 'the' to end of line 40 and insert
`committee may resign by notice in writing to the Secretary of State; and the chairman may by such a notice resign his office as such.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 151, in page 8, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 9 and insert
`(4) it shall be the function of the committee—

(a) to keep under review the working of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1)(c) above and to make to the Secretary of State such recommendation as the committee may from time to time think necessary for the improvement of the working of those provisions;


(b) if requested by the Secretary of State to do so, to make proposals for amending those provisions; and
(c) to advise the Secretary of State on any other matter relating to those provisions which he may refer to the committee.

(5) The committee shall in each year make a report on its activities to the Secretary of State who shall lay copies of the report before Parliament.'.-[Mr. Douglas. Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 152, in page 9, line 12, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 13 and insert
'cease to exist at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force unless the Secretary of State provides by an order made by statutory instrument for it to continue thereafter, but no such order shall continue the committee for more than three years at a time.'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS

Amendment proposed: No. 64, in page 9, line 14, at beginning insert—
`( ) In section 4 of the principal Act (conversion of weapons) in subsection (4), for the words "converted contrary to subsection (3) above" there shall be substituted the words "converted as mentioned in subsection (3) above".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 65, in page 9, line 14, leave out 'the principal' and insert `that'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 66, in page 9, line 18, at end insert—
`(1A) In sections 13(1)(c), 40(4) and 49(1) of that Act (which refer to officers of police) for the words "an officer of police", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted the words "a constable".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it: and, on his decision being challenged, It appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 30, in page 9, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'there' in line 33 and insert
'In subsection(1) of section 42 of that Act (transferor of firearm to which section I applies to give notice of transaction to a chief officer of police) for the words "forty-eight hours" there shall be substituted the words "seven days" and after that subsection'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it: and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 67, in page 9, line 37 at end insert—
'(4A) In Part I of Schedule 6 to that Act (penalties), in the entry relating to section 9(3) (false statement to obtain permit for auction of firearms) for columns 3 and 4 there shall be substituted the following—

"Summary
 6 Month or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale; or both.".'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

INTERPRETATION AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Amendment proposed: No. 47, in page 10, line 12. leave out from 'Act' to 'containing' in line 13 and insert
'revolver", in relation to a smooth-bore gun, means a gun'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly


called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 48, in page 10, line 14, at end insert—
`(2A) In section 57(4) of the principal Act after the definition of "registered" there shall be inserted—
rifle' includes carbine;",'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20

SHORT TITLE, CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendment proposed: No. 21, in page 10, line 35, leave out
`This Act shall come into force on'
and insert
`Except for section (Corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland) and this section the provisions of this Act shall not come into force until'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 22, in page 10, line 38, at beginning insert
`Except for section (Corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland) and this section'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

SCHEDULE

FIREARMS IN MUSEUMS

5 am

Amendment proposed: No. 69, in page 11, line 12, after `firearms', insert 'and ammunition'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it: and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 70, in page 11, line 16, after `weapons', insert 'and ammunition'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 71, in page 11, line 21, after `firearms', insert 'and ammunition'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 11, line 24, leave out from 'securing' to the end of line 25 and insert
`the safe custody of the firearms and ammunition in question'.—[Mr Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 73, in page 12, leave out lines 33 to 40.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 74, in page 12, line 42, leave out 'or under sub-paragraph (4)(b)'.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Tim Smith: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether, before we reach amendment No. 23, you could give me some advice because I do not know how to vote on it. Do you have any information about why we should leave out:
The Museum of Naval Ordnance, Priddy's Yard"?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that theAyes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed,


and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 23, in page 13, line 23, leave out
'The Museum of Naval Ordnance, Priddy's Yard'.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER stated that he thought that the Ayes had it; and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared that the Ayes had it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House will wish to know that I am prepared to allow a Division on Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 12.

Division No. 341]
[5.18 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Day, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Devlin, Tim


Allason, Rupert
Dorrell, Stephen


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Amos, Alan
Dover, Den


Arbuthnot, James
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Emery, Sir Peter


Ashby, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Atkinson, David
Favell, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Baldry, Tony
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Forman, Nigel


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forth, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boswell, Tim
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Freeman, Roger


Bowis, John
French, Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gregory, Conal


Burt, Alistair
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Hanley, Jeremy


Cash, William
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Harris, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayward, Robert


Cope, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cran, James
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)





Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Page, Richard


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Paice, James


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Irvine, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jack, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Janman, Tim
Powell, William (Corby)


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rowe, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knox, David
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Ivan
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Speed, Keith


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stern, Michael


Lightbown, David
Stevens, Lewis


Lilley, Peter
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Summerson, Hugo


Lord, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maclean, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Malins, Humfrey
Tracey, Richard


Mans, Keith
Trotter, Neville


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Maude, Hon Francis
Walden, George


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Watts, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Miller, Hal
Wheeler, John


Mills, Iain
Widdecombe, Ann


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wilkinson, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wood, Timothy


Nelson, Anthony



Neubert, Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.




NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Beggs, Roy
Salmond, Alex


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Noes:


McCusker, Harold
Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Andrew Welsh


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Question accordingly agreed to

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Takeover Bids

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Mr. John Greenway: I doubt whether there can have been many occasions in recent years when an hon. Member who has been lucky enough to raise an issue on the Adjournment for the first time has had such a large and supportive audience, has chosen to discuss a subject that has dominated the day's national news, has had to wait such a long time and has witnessed such bizarre scenes while preparing for the debate. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs for the fact that he has had to stay up all night. I hope he will find, after my speech, that it has been worth while.
As the House knows, early today my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced that, following advice from the Director General of Fair Trading, Sir Gordon Borrie, there were, in his view, no grounds for the Government to intervene in the Nestle bid and the 29·9 per cent. Suchard interest in Rowntree, and that he would not therefore refer the matter to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
This decision is a cause of deep regret to many of my constituents and to many people in Yorkshire and the rest of the country. It is also a matter of considerable regret to me that I find myself so greatly at odds with my right hon. and noble Friend, for whom I have such great admiration.
I and my hon. Friends, whose support this morning I much appreciate, find it difficult to accept that there is no Case for referring the Rowntree issue to the MMC on grounds of lack of reciprocity. In his speech to the Retail Consortium early this morning, the Secretary of State admitted that the London stock exchange would not accept the restrictive approach of Swiss companies.
I ask the House to consider the following points. Foreign companies cannot take over listed Swiss companies. Practically no Swiss-quoted companies have been acquired by non-Swiss companies of any nationality in recent years. No quoted Swiss companies have been the subject of hostile takeovers in recent years by predators of even Swiss nationality—let alone by United Kingdom or European ones.
Quoted Swiss companies can defend themselves in a way that is not possible for United Kingdom-listed companies. They can simply refuse to register the shares acquired by an unwelcome shareholder. United Kingdom stock exchange rules prevent a United Kingdom company from taking such defensive action. Almost all quoted Swiss companies do not allow non-Swiss shareholders to be registered with significant shareholdings. With rules enforced by Swiss banks, the main stockbrokers in Switzerland, these companies have adopted anti-foreign shareholder policies which allow them to refuse to sell registered shares in these companies to foreigners.
Early today the Secretary of State suggested that
nothing in our law prevents a company, with the consent of its shareholders, making it virtually impossible to have a hostile takeover.
He mentioned several companies that have ended up in that position.
But the Secretary of State must know that these companies are in the minority; they are very much the exception. In most cases their rules were formulated under

original private ownership and no major United Kingdom company would have a realistic chance of persuading the financial institutions to underwrite share issues on Swiss terms. But that is not all. The real point that the Secretary of State has not answered is that to which I have already referred: Swiss companies can refuse to register shares. Reciprocity is not so much about voting rights as about transferability. Public companies in the United Kingdom cannot refuse to register; in Switzerland the right of refusal to register is the everyday creed.
The DTI Blue Paper on mergers policy, published only two months ago, states in paragraph 2.26:
There are instances in which foreign ownership of a UK company may raise particular concerns, and in such cases the power to make a reference to the MMC is available for use. One consideration that may be relevant in some cases is the extent to which UK companies have reciprocal freedom to acquire companies based in the home country of the prospective acquirer.
If ever there was a case for a reference on grounds of lack of reciprocity, the Swiss interest in Rowntree is it. Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell the House which other cases or circumstances the Government had in mind when drafting that recommendation.
The attitude of the Swiss Government towards those matters also deserves further scrutiny and consideration. The Secretary of State confirmed earlier today that,
at that level—government intervention—there are no barriers to British firms taking over Swiss firms.
It is my understanding that, on 23 February 1983, the Federal Government of Switzerland recommended changes in Swiss company law which supported the proposition that the board of a Swiss company should be free to refuse to register foreigners as registered shareholders. I understand that those recommendations and concerns about the protectionist position the Swiss firms have led the Federal Government to promulgate a review of the regulations. That surely shows that the Swiss authorities may well have intervened.
Referral of the Nestlé bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) suggested earlier today, would have sent a very clear signal to the Swiss authorities that the protectionist regimes of the public quoted companies in Switzerland are not acceptable. It is a lost opportunity to create the pressure needed to even out the ground rules. I am not alone in taking that view. On 11 May, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary told the Swiss Government
Swiss companies expect to make takeovers in our market. Their Government must ensure British firms can make takeovers in theirs. We want the single market to be an open market. But if the away teams are going to play on a level pitch when they come to the Community we shall want to see them levelling their pitch too for the return match.
As it is, by not referring the Rowntree issue to the MMC, the Secretary of State has sent a signal to the Swiss not to mend their ways, but to prepare for more predatory takeovers. Other non-EEC-based companies will have felt encouraged to take similar action.
It does not require much imagination to envisage that Nestlé or Suchard, having lost the battle for Rowntree, might then bid successfully for Cadbury. How could the United Kingdom Government or the European Commission prevent a future Nestlé-Rowntree and then Suchard-Cadbury merger? By that means, we could yet pass from six major confectionery companies in Europe at


present down to five, then quickly to four and even then to three, all outside the control of either this Government or the European Commission.
After confectionery firms, what else may be at risk? The issue has certainly exposed opportunities for other major takeovers. The food and drinks industries look vulnerable, as much comment in the media yesterday has suggested and has been reflected in share price movements. In my own profession, insurance, which has always been international in outlook, fears are being expressed and, without any intervention by or approach from me, representations were made on news of this debate that the leading position of major United Kingdom insurers to take advantage of the opportunities of 1992 has been fully recognised abroad. Those issues must be reviewed urgently. The Leisner review did not address them. A referral of the Rowntree issue would have been the ideal opportunity to do so.
I fully recognise and appreciate the tremendous benefits that inward instment and acquisitions overseas are playing in the spectacular recovery of the United Kingdom economy. It is a recovery which only the policies that this Government have pursued could have brought about, but there are occasions when the questions raised are sufficiently important to warrant consideration of other interests without running the risks of damaging other investment opportunities. That must be why the policy on mergers provides the opportunity for referral on grounds other than competition.
I share my right hon. and noble Friend's belief that stock markets are better judges of the viability of mergers than Governments and politicians, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) outlined so clearly in an article in The Guardian yesterday, to work for the public good, capital markets must be efficient. Therein lies the virtue and importance of reciprocity. Any company which is the subject of a bid from a less efficient company can counter-bid or look to a white knight to do so. Investor interest will always bring the efficient company out on top, but this option is not open to Rowntree. If the control of Rowntree is lost to Switzerland, it will be lost for ever. That is surely the acid test of riciprocity.
Throughout the country the advertising hoardings show Sir John Harvey-Jones, the former chairman of ICI, declaring of 1992:
History is in the making.
Those words have a hollow ring about them in York this morning. Is it too late? Can Rowntree be saved? The Rowntree board must decide how to respond to the Nestle and Suchard interest and attempt to convince shareholders of its arguments. That is the board's job and it must do that.
However, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry could yet intervene. The Suchard bid, which it has announced it will launch shortly, must now be considered by the Office of Fair Trading. Unlike Nestle, Suchard has no factories in the United Kingdom and no history of investment here. As a consequence, it has no employees in the United Kingdom. Suchard is under private control. On both national interest and reciprocity grounds, the Suchard bid sould be considered by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I urge the Secretary of State to make such a reference.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on securing this debate. It is most timely for the House to consider the matter further Even at this late hour, I welcome the continued support of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) who have joined us on this occasion.
In recent years Rowntree has nurtured a European seed. Its brands in mainland Europe are successful and gaining momentum. We should consider that background as we build towards 1992. Now a Swiss predator has threatened that European drive and determination. Although Rowntree is well placed for the magic date of 1992, it cannot effectively stop a hostile bid from a non-European Community company.
At this stage, I should ask several questions related to reciprocity. The Rowntree case shows the probability that successful British companies well prepared for 1992 will become the targets of foreign companies that are less well prepared. We have seen and are seeing a struggle for a major confectionery company. A pharmaceutical company may be next.
It is true that red tape is being cut away, but at the same time my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is showing the green light for takeovers. That trend will be reinforced because aggressive bidders know that they are unlikely to see successful British companies ripe to be plucked elsewhere in the European Community.
If we follow the analogy used by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, and if the bid from the Swiss predator is successful and the American bid for Cadbury succeeds, some 80 per cent. of the United Kingdom confectionery industry will be taken out of European Community hands. The Swiss are likely to be particularly aggressive because of their concern about exclusion from the European Community, but they will continue to protect their own companies from aggressive purchase by foreigners.
Our cri de coeur is that the Swiss are not playing cricket. They are not playing at fair and free competition. We want the freedom of the skies in Europe and freedom in manufacturing industry. We also want fairness and that is not contained in the Government's policy.
When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs replies, I hope that he will tell us where Britain stands with regard to its mergers policy. Why is the United Kingdom, together with France, delaying signing the European Community directive? If that had been signed, the European Commission could have intervened in the past week. How seriously does my right hon. and noble Friend consider the lack of reciprocity? I have yet to hear of any one from Britain or elsewhere in the European Community being successful at buying into a Swiss company.
We must have answers to these points and to the matter of the referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because that has an employment aspect in Britain.

Mr. Michael Alison: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for


allowing me to take up some of the precious time of his Adjournment debate to speak in support of Rowntree on behalf of the many Rowntree employees who live in Selby.
I believe that it is perverse, if not inept, for the Government to advocate strongly open markets as the best means of encouraging efficiency and jobs in Britain—the Secretary of State advocated that today. The Government then recognised, however, that Swiss companies tend to be more restrictive than ours. They further recognised that Swiss companies appear to be wavering slightly on open markets—we believe that that attitude scarcely serves the Swiss economy well.
The Government have not followed the logic of their argument, however, and they have not exacted a penalty for that waywardness by closing the doors on Nestle until the Swiss open their doors to us. Such a contradictory attitude on the part of our Government is unsatisfactory.
I fear that the restrictive Swiss, of whom we all disapprove in this context, will be the beneficiaries and the free-trading Britons will be the losers. That is the paradox. Above all, Rowntree will be the victim of the Government's error of judgment.
I hope that the Minister will take to heart the alternative route forward—for which my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale eloquently argued—and, even at this late hour, give Rowntree a second chance.

Sir Giles Shaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for allowing me to make a brief contribution to the debate. I must declare an interest as a past employee of 18 years' standing in Rowntree.
I cannot accept that national issues are not connected with the bid and I believe that they should be addressed. A mechanism for redress has not been used—that is, the rapid progress that has now been made in providing advice from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Such advice is now available within three months.
There are three issues at stake. First, I find it extraordinary that a company can make a bid of 14·9 per cent. and an offer for Rowntree of £2·1 billion. That offer immediately releases the bid of 14·9 per cent. up to 30 per cent. Rowntree is unable to defend itself under stock exchange regulations because it cannot provide the bid document from Nestle and is therefore unable to offer a full defence. That cannot be right or fair.
Secondly, I do not understand why it is believed that the European dimension has been included in the assessments made by my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State. We know nothing about it. What is the European dimension? It should be publicised and we should know how it works.
Thirdly, the public are most confused about our monopolies and mergers policy. They do not understand it. They believe that that mechanism should be used from time to time. They do not understand why it is not used in many of the operations considered by the Department of Trade and Industry. The rarity of its use is the wrong way to go about things.
We should have a clear signalling system, which would not worry capital flows, but would merely make it obvious that, from time to time, Britain has a populist, nationalist case to argue. That case should be argued in the House.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): I understand the anxiety that is felt by my right hon. and hon. Friends. Rowntree has been a topical subject for a month or more. It was timely, in terms of dates, for my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) to draw the Adjournment debate tonight, although it has not proved timely in terms of the hour of the debate. It gives us the opportunity, however, to consider some of the wider aspects connected with the bid and with the decision that my right hon. and noble Friend announced yesterday morning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw) raised specific questions with which I shall deal first. He mentioned stock exchange rules, which he feels have prejudiced Rowntree's position. I shall look at the point he raised and consider whether there are things to be done. He says that we ought to make clearer our policy on mergers. We have done so in a Blue Paper that we published two months ago.
My hon. Friend says that we should be more ready to use the tool of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Every year in the United Kingdom there are hundreds of mergers that qualify for reference under the asset test or the market share test. A tiny proportion of those mergers are referred for a full inquiry. That proportion has not become more tiny under my right hon. and noble Friend's regime. We are not slow to make a reference when there is a clear public interest in doing so, and a number of recent cases illustrate that.
I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) that a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is not to be used as a penalty against a company making a bid. It is to be used to inquire whether the public interest is adversely affected. Unless there is a possibility of an adverse public interest finding, it would be cynical for us simply to meet a populist demand. If a properly funded case is made, it has been shown that we are not slow to respond, but, in the absence of a case being fully made, it would be cynical to use a major tool of competition policy in that way.
The decision that my right hon. and noble Friend made and announced earlier does not by any means mean that the die is cast and that Nestlé will necessarily take over Rowntree nor that by his decision my right hon. and noble Friend is voicing any preference about the future ownership of Rowntree. His decision means only that there are no grounds for intervention in the proper working of the market in this case. It is now up to the Rowntree shareholders, as it has been throughout from the launching of the bid, to make their own decision whether to accept an offer in the light of future market developments. That decision is made entirely in accordance with the Government's policy on mergers, restated in the Blue Paper earlier this year.
I turn to the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale mentioned at the outset, the Suchard bid for Rowntree. As he asserts, Sir Gordon Borrie will consider it and advise my right hon. and noble Friend. None of my


hon. Friends will expect me to give a preview either of what that advice will be—because I cannot possibly know—or of what my right hon. and noble Friend's decision will be following that. The proper statutory procedures will have to be followed and we shall have to wait and see.
There were no competition issues, and no one seriously has suggested that there are. The market shares, even after a successful bid for Rowntree by Nestle, would not be such as to cause anxiety from that point of view. The case has rested on reciprocity, which at first glance is an appealing concept. It seems unfair to us that companies in other countries which have protected, bid-proof share structures should be able to buy shares in our companies on the open market with no form of counter-action available to UK companies. Our sense of fair play, of playing the game, of our playing cricket while others do not, is offended. It is easy to see why, but the reality is rather more complex.
Under Swiss law there are no powers for the Swiss or foreigners to block takeovers of industrial companies. So, at the level of Government intervention, there are no barriers to British firms taking over Swiss firms. Indeed, in terms of legal powers, the United Kingdom barriers are higher. As has been pointed out, Swiss companies may make themselves proof against unwelcome takeovers, whether by Swiss or foreign companies—as my hon. Friend was fair enough to point out—by restrictions on certain types of shareholding.
Equally, there is nothing in United Kingdom company law that prevents a company, with the consent of its shareholders, from making a similar arrangement. There are many British public and quoted companies having differential share structures which make it difficult for takeovers effectively to be mounted. Those are not just accidents of history. Only this month Sotheby's issued shares which represented 25 per cent. of the company's capital but only 3 per cent. of its voting rights.
Companies do not even need to go to those lengths. There are many other companies in this country which are proof against takeovers—the large mutual institutions, building societies and private companies are not quoted—and many public companies have large blocks of shares held in family hands. That also makes them, by the nature of their share structure, proof against hostile takeovers.
There are two points in particular that I wish to make. First, the issue of reciprocity has become synonymous with foreign takeovers of United Kingdom companies and the possibility, or not, of the converse. Much has been made of the foreign nature of Nestlé as a bidding company. However, we must remember that Nestlé has been manufacturing in the United Kingdom for more than 120

years. It employs more people in the United Kingdom than it does in Switzerland. Its product range includes such "foreign" products as Carnation milk and Branston pickle. The idea that Nestle is a company charging in from outside with no knowledge of the British market is plainly absurd.
In general, in the case of Switzerland and of other countries—such as Germany, which has restrictive share structures—to think of reciprocity as something that arises only in the foreign context is to misconstrue the facts. Swiss companies are often structured to protect themselves against any form of hostile takeover, whether domestic or foreign. In other words, those arrangements are just as applicable to Swiss predators as they are to foreign ones.
Secondly, both the Swiss and United Kingdom systems of structuring companies are rooted in culture rather than in law. Both Swiss and United Kingdom company law is essentially permissive, allowing companies to structure themselves as they see fit. We have opted for an open stock market that allows for contested bids, but the Swiss culture is different. It gives greater emphasis to companies being able to protect themselves from hostile bids. However, foreign takeovers of Swiss companies do occur, but only on a friendly basis. We simply look differently at mergers.
We believe that the United Kingdom systems brings us considerable benefits. My hon. Friend pointed out that there is considerable public debate in Switzerland about whether the system which that country has followed brings the greatest benefits. The fact that the Swiss are re-examining that aspect suggests that there are doubts about it. It is for each country to pursue its internal policy. We have made a judgment that our system serves our national interest best, and I have no doubt that that judgment is fundamentally correct.
The question of the single European market in 1992 has been raised. How should we approach it? We say that the competition authorities must judge in the first instance what is the market that is applicable. Is it a local market, a regional market, a national market, or an international market? We must consider what are the market shares, what will be the ease of entry, and how that will affect the issues of competition. Those aspects were considerd in this case as in any other. We must make sure that we maintain our open markets. They have brought us great benefits and I have no doubt that they will continue to do so in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Six o'clock on Thursday 26 May.